U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

99–878 PDF 2006

S. HRG. 109–251 

STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED 

PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL 

YEAR 2006 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON

H.R. 3057 

AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT 

FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2006, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

Department of State 

United States Agency for International Development 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

HARRY REID, Nevada 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

J. KEITH KENNEDY, Staff Director 

TERRENCE E. SAUVAIN, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky, Chairman 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi (Ex officio) 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia (Ex officio) 

Professional Staff 

PAUL GROVE

TOM HAWKINS

TIM RIESER (Minority) 

MARK LIPPERT (Minority) 

Administrative Support 

LASHAWNDA SMITH
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

THURSDAY, MAY 12, 2005 

Page 

Department of State: Office of the Secretary ........................................................ 1 

THURSDAY, MAY 26, 2005 

United States Agency for International Development .......................................... 69 

(1) 

STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED 

PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL 

YEAR 2006 

THURSDAY, MAY 12, 2005 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 2:05 p.m., in room SD–124, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Mitch McConnell (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators McConnell, Specter, Gregg, Bennett, DeWine, 

Brownback, Cochran, Leahy, Harkin, Durbin, and Landrieu. 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

STATEMENT OF HON. CONDOLEEZZA RICE, SECRETARY 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MITCH MC CONNELL

Senator MCCONNELL. The hearing will come to order. 

Thank you very much, Secretary Rice, for joining us today. 

We have the chairman of the full committee with us. I appreciate 

your being here, Senator Cochran. 

Today’s hearing is really historic in at least one respect. Not only 

is this your debut before this subcommittee, but it is also our firstever hearing since the subcommittee reorganized earlier this year 

to incorporate the Department of State’s entire operation. 

Let me begin today by commending Chairman Cochran for his 

wisdom and leadership, and not just with respect to the committee 

reorganization. On Tuesday, the Senate gave its unanimous approval to the emergency supplemental. Senator Cochran deserves 

the lion’s share of the credit in getting this important measure to 

the President in a timely manner. We all thank him for that, and 

certainly the men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan 

thank him as well. 

As we consider the President’s fiscal year 2006 request, my colleagues should keep in mind that we will not succeed as a Nation 

in the global war on terror unless we employ our foreign assistance 

programs as weapons in America’s arsenal. This is particularly 

true with respect to front-line states, such as the $920 million request for Afghanistan, $698 million for Pakistan, $158 million for 

Indonesia, and $96 million for the Philippines. Simply put, as we 

strengthen the military, police, and good governance of these 
2 

states, we relieve the demands upon America’s own military and 

diplomatic resources. Our aid runs the gamut from ‘‘hard’’ 

counterterrorism and military packages for foreign governments to 

‘‘soft’’ child survival and basic health programs for rural populations. Both are integral components of deterring and defeating 

terrorism. 

As is the case every year, the subcommittee will have difficult decisions to make in the weeks and months ahead. However, the 

process of reviewing the $33.6 billion request for the State Department and foreign operations is well underway. This includes examination of proposed increases above fiscal year 2005 funding levels 

in such accounts as Transition Initiatives, Diplomatic and Consular 

Programs, and the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and decreases in others, including assistance for Eastern Europe and the 

Baltic States and assistance for the Independent States of the 

Former Soviet Union. 

I want to assure you, Secretary Rice, that we are attuned to 

changing realities around the world, including in such regions as 

Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Middle East. Under the 

President’s leadership, the march of freedom across the globe has 

been truly impressive, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, or 

Georgia. Please know you have all of our personal commitments to 

help advance democracy in Egypt, Belarus, and the Kyrgyz Republic, among other countries. 

The use of cutting edge technology in this endeavor is vital. If 

you have not already, I would encourage you to become familiar 

with the programs of Voice for Humanity in both Iraq and Afghanistan. These outreach activities are reaching important segments of 

those populations, including illiterate individuals and women. 

As has become my tradition, let me just close with a couple of 

words on Burma. The situation in that country remains absolutely 

deplorable with democracy leader and Nobel laureate Aung San 

Suu Kyi and her compatriots under continued imprisonment. Access to Suu Kyi since the attempt on her life in May 2003 has been 

extremely limited, and I remain gravely concerned for her safety. 

Let me be crystal clear that the security and welfare of Suu Kyi 

is the direct responsibility of the SPDC leader Than Shwe. 

Along with several of my colleagues, including Senators Leahy 

and Brownback, I introduced legislation earlier this week to renew 

the sanctions against this repressive regime. America’s challenge is 

fairly straightforward. We need to make that struggle for freedom 

in Burma a priority for the world’s democracies, for multilateral organizations, including the United Nations and the European 

Union, and for Burma’s neighbors. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

As you and I have discussed on several occasions, the ASEAN 

chairmanship is supposed to move to Burma in 2006 with the 

meeting supposedly to occur there. I think that is unacceptable. I 

believe you share my view on that. Hopefully that will be a focal 

point for beginning to genuinely get the kind of multilateral cooperation we need to truly squeeze that regime. 

[The statement follows:] 
3 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL

Today’s hearing is an historical one. Not only is this your debut before this Subcommittee, but it is also our first-ever hearing since the Subcommittee reorganized 

earlier this year to incorporate the Department of State’s entire operations. 

Let me begin my remarks today by commending Chairman Cochran for his wisdom and leadership—and not just with respect to Committee reorganization. On 

Tuesday, the Senate gave its unanimous approval to the emergency supplemental 

bill and Senator Cochran deserves the lion’s share of credit in getting this important 

measure to the President in a timely manner. He has the thanks of a grateful nation, particularly our men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

As we consider the President’s fiscal year 2006 request, my colleagues should keep 

in mind that we will not succeed as a nation in the global war on terror unless we 

employ our foreign assistance programs as weapons in America’s arsenal. This is 

particularly true with respect to front-line states, such as the $920 million request 

for Afghanistan, $698 million for Pakistan, $158 million for Indonesia, and $96 million for the Philippines. Simply put, as we strengthen the military, police and good 

governance of these states, we relieve the demands upon America’s own military 

and diplomatic resources. Our aid runs the gamut from ‘‘hard’’ counterterrorism and 

military packages for foreign governments to ‘‘soft’’ child survival and basic health 

programs for rural populations. Both are integral components of deterring and defeating terrorism. 

As is the case every year, the Subcommittee will have difficult decisions to make 

in the weeks and months ahead. However, the process of reviewing the $33.6 billion 

request for the Department of State and foreign operations is well underway. This 

includes examination of proposed increases above fiscal year 2005 funding levels in 

such accounts as Transition Initiatives, Diplomatic and Consular Programs and the 

Millennium Challenge Corporation, and decreases in others, including Assistance for 

Eastern Europe and the Baltic States, and Assistance for the Independent States 

of the Former Soviet Union. 

I want to assure you, Secretary Rice, that we are attuned to changing realities 

around the world, including in such regions as Eastern Europe, Central Asia and 

the Middle East. Under the President’s leadership, the march of freedom across the 

globe has been truly impressive—whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, or Georgia. 

Please know you have my personal commitment to help advance democracy in 

Egypt, Belarus, and the Kyrgyz Republic, among other countries. 

The use of cutting edge technology in this endeavor is vital. If you have not already, I encourage you to become familiar with the programs of Voice for Humanity 

in both Iraq and Afghanistan. These outreach activities are reaching important segments of those populations, including illiterate individuals and women. 

As has become my tradition, let me close with a few words on Burma. The situation in that country remains deplorable, with democracy leader and Nobel laureate 

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her compatriots under continued imprisonment. Access 

to Suu Kyi since the attempt on her life in May 2003 has been extremely limited, 

and I remain gravely concerned for her safety. Let me be crystal clear that the security and welfare of Suu Kyi is the direct responsibility of SPDC leader Than Shwe. 

Along with several of my colleagues—including Senators Leahy and Brownback— 

I introduced legislation earlier this week to renew sanctions against the repressive 

State Peace and Development Council (SPDC). America’s challenge is fairly 

straightforward—we need to help make the struggle for freedom in Burma a priority 

for the world’s democracies, for multilateral organizations (including the United Nations and the European Union), and for Burma’s neighbors. 

The SPDC’s chairmanship of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) 

looms on the horizon. We must seize that as an opportunity to increase pressure 

on the junta until such time that Burma embarks on an irreversible path toward 

reconciliation and democracy. 

Senator MCCONNELL. Let me now turn to my friend and longtime 

colleague on this subcommittee, Senator Leahy, for his opening observations, and then we will be happy to hear from you, Secretary 

Rice. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, I join the chairman in welcoming you on your 

first appearance before this subcommittee. 
4 

I also want to thank the chairman for his continued work on 

these issues. I might say that to both chairmen, but more importantly for our longstanding, decades-old friendships. 

We have a lot to cover, Madam Secretary. I want to focus on one 

issue that you and I have spoken about, even before you were confirmed, and that is the need for U.S. foreign aid programs to be 

funded at a level that is commensurate with our national interests. 

The President’s National Security Strategy recognizes the central 

role of foreign aid. I agree with the President on that. His fiscal 

year 2006 budget request for foreign operations, an increase of $3.1 

billion over last year’s level, is good step forward. 

But I also have serious concerns with this year’s budget. Unfortunately, the President cuts several core foreign aid programs. 

Here are the things cut: funding for child survival and health programs, including infectious diseases, cut by $280 million. The development assistance account is cut by $45 million. Aid to Russia 

is cut in half. We even cut our contribution to UNICEF, something 

that seems to work very, very well everywhere I go in the world. 

And there are a number of other areas, promoting renewable energy, supporting democracy. We could and should do more. 

The programs are cut to pay for a large increase in funding for 

the Millennium Challenge Corporation. You and I discussed this a 

little bit earlier this afternoon. I support the MCC, but the President said we would not cut other things to pay for it. We had his 

personal assurance that other programs would not be cut to pay for 

the MCC. 

Again, I continue to support MCC, but the proposed increase in 

funding at the expense of other programs really cannot fly. If this 

year’s request is fully funded, a total of $5.5 billion will have been 

appropriated to the MCC. So far, it has awarded one compact of 

$110 million, and that is to Madagascar. Madagascar has a population of only 15 million people. We are concerned about billions of 

people. 

I worry about having billions of dollars for this account just sitting in the Treasury for years when there are urgent needs, to promote democracy, stop childhood diseases, stop the deaths of millions of children between the time of birth and 2 years old, who die 

of diseases that children in this country are immunized against. 

Your being here today is very important. I thank you for that. 

I know how busy your schedule is. 

But you have to really fight for this budget. The House allocation 

for the Foreign Operations Subcommittee is $2.5 billion below the 

President’s request. This creates a real problem for Senator Cochran, Senator McConnell, and for me. You have got to fight and the 

President has got to use the bully pulpit to fight for more. I know 

there are a lot of things on your mind, but these are the things 

that can make us safer as a Nation, but also respond to the fact 

that as the wealthiest, most powerful Nation on earth, we have a 

moral responsibility. We are blessed with so much. We will not stay 

blessed that long if we do not return it. 

I know that dealing with the Congress is not always politically 

rewarding. Sometimes it is not even fun, but Madam Secretary, 

you have to do it. 
5 

Even if we got every single cent that has been required, we are 

still talking about only 1 percent of the Federal budget. We want 

to use our great wealth and our blessings to respond to global poverty, international terrorism, everything else. One percent. 

The President’s budget is a positive first step. I say that as a 

member of the other party. But Democrats and Republicans work 

very closely together up here. Senator McConnell and I have. We 

try to protect this budget. We will keep on trying to do it, but help 

us. Help us get the money. A lot of people around the world see 

this as the face of our moral leadership. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MCCONNELL. Thank you, Senator Leahy. 

The way we will proceed is we are going to have a short statement from the chairman of the full committee, then your statement, Secretary Rice, and then questions in order of arrival. Senator Cochran. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in 

welcoming Dr. Rice to this committee hearing. It has been a pleasure working with the Secretary and White House officials as well 

on the supplemental appropriations bill, which the President has 

now signed. I look forward to continuing that relationship as the 

committee considers the fiscal year 2006 budget request for the Department of State. 

The President has an important foreign policy agenda, which includes an emergency plan for AIDS relief, promoting global democracy, assisting developing countries, and reducing barriers to free 

trade. 

Madam Secretary, the committee appreciates your leadership as 

Secretary of State and your assistance in identifying our foreign 

policy priorities. We thank you for the excellent work you are doing 

in our Nation’s behalf. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MCCONNELL. Thank you, Chairman Cochran. 

Secretary Rice, we will be happy to put your full statement in 

the record, if you have one, and go right ahead. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. CONDOLEEZZA RICE

Secretary RICE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would 

like to proceed as follows, with the committee’s forbearance. I have 

a statement that I would like to make about another matter first. 

I have a longer statement, which I would like to enter into the 

record and perhaps just make a few comments about it so that we 

have maximum time for questions. 

Senator MCCONNELL. That will be fine. 

RESPECT FOR THE HOLY KORAN

Secretary RICE. Mr. Chairman, before I begin my actual testimony, I want to speak directly to Muslims in America and throughout the world. 

Disrespect for the Holy Koran is not now, nor has it ever been, 

nor will it ever be tolerated by the United States. We honor the sa-
6 

cred books of all the world’s great religions. Disrespect for the Holy 

Koran is abhorrent to us all. 

There have been recent allegations about disrespect for the Holy 

Koran by interrogators at Guantanamo Bay and that has deeply offended many people. Our military authorities are investigating 

these allegations fully. If they are proven true, we will take appropriate action. 

Respect for the religious freedom of all individuals is one of the 

founding principles of the United States. The protection of a person’s right to worship freely and without harassment is a principle 

that the Government and the people of the United States take very 

seriously. Guaranteeing religious rights is of great personal importance to the President and to me. 

During the past few days, we have heard from our Muslim 

friends around the world about their concerns on this matter. We 

understand and we share their concerns. Sadly, some people have 

lost their lives in violent demonstrations. I am asking that all our 

friends around the world reject incitement to violence by those who 

would mischaracterize our intentions. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. 

As I said, I have a longer statement that I would like to place 

in the record, but I would just like to make a few highlights. 

PROMOTING DEMOCRACY

This is indeed an extraordinary period, and I think everyone has 

spoken to that. It is a time that I think is unlike any other since 

perhaps the end of World War II when the United States took on 

the mantle of creating a stable and democratic Europe, a Europe 

at that time, that was divided in half but eventually became whole 

and free and at peace. We learned from that experience that if we 

are sound in our diplomacy and if we are sound in our values about 

democracy, that indeed we are safer and more secure because as 

democracy goes forward and prospers, the United States is indeed 

safer and secure. When democracy is in retreat, freedom is in retreat, then we are more vulnerable. We learned that in a very 

graphic and difficult way on September 11. 

The President has said that the only way to deal with the 

ideologies of hatred that we face in the world now is to present the 

world with the antidote to that, which is the spread of liberty and 

freedom. I would just like to echo something that the chairman 

said, which is that indeed we are watching remarkable events 

around the world. Who could not be impressed with the Rose Revolution in Georgia or the Orange Revolution in Ukraine or the Cedar 

Revolution in Lebanon or with Iraqis and Afghans voting in large 

numbers against all odds? 

But I think that we all recognize that times of challenge and opportunity also require the very hardest work and the very greatest 

concentration. What we hope to do at the State Department is to 

employ the very fine men and women of the Foreign Service, the 

Civil Service, and foreign service nationals in that cause. 
7 

EQUAL IMPORTANCE OF STATE AND FOREIGN OPERATIONS REQUESTS

The budget before you attempts to do several things. First of all, 

I just want to make the point that we must maintain a balance of 

resources between State and foreign operations. The diplomatic 

platform that we have out there, the people, our ability to operate 

in the field, our facilities, is the platform from which we conduct 

our diplomacy. We are especially concerned that our people will 

have the training that they need, the technology that they need, 

and that they will also have the facilities that they need, and the 

security that they need. 

In that regard, I would like to thank those who worked so hard 

on the supplemental. I know this was not an easy matter, but the 

Baghdad embassy, especially, is going to be very important to the 

safety and security and well-being of our people, and I want to 

thank you for your hard work on that. 

We are also, of course, pursuing a number of important strategic 

directions. In the global war on terrorism, we think very often of 

what our military is doing in the mountains of Afghanistan or 

along the Afghan/Pakistani border. We think of our men and 

women in uniform and what they are doing in the Baghdad Sunni 

Triangle. But we also need to think of the important role that our 

foreign assistance plays in our partnerships with the front-line 

states of Afghanistan and Iraq and Pakistan and Jordan and other 

states in the war on terrorism. 

What we are really doing in the support that we provide for 

these states is to allow them to become really active and effective 

warriors in the war on terrorism, and we are much better when we 

are fighting side by side with those who have everything to lose in 

the war on terrorism like the Pakistanis and the Afghans and the 

Iraqis of the world. If you just go back a few years, it is remarkable 

to think of the array of states that are now fighting with us in the 

Global War on Terrorism. We need to support them. 

This budget supports them in a very important way with foreign 

assistance. I think we just need to keep in mind that this is strategic assistance. We tend to think of foreign aid. This is strategic 

assistance that makes us more effective also in the global war on 

terrorism. 

We, of course, are trying to pursue the opportunities for democracy that are presenting themselves to us, it seems almost daily, 

in the Middle East where I will submit to you and I promise and 

commit to you that we are actively beginning now to look hard at 

our public diplomacy efforts in the Middle East to really replace 

the ideologies of hatred, the misinformation about the United 

States, with effective messages about who we are and what we are 

trying to do. 

But, of course, there are still many places that require our attention, and I would like to thank Senator McConnell for putting a 

spotlight in the supplemental on Belarus, the last dictatorship in 

Europe. I had a chance to meet with some of the civil society activists from Belarus. They are really people who look at what happened in Ukraine, look at what happened in Georgia, and say, why 

not here? It will come in time because these are universal values 

and ultimately they will triumph. But we have to stand with people 
8 

in places like Belarus, and in places like Burma, to let them know 

that at least the United States is with them. 

We are also trying to improve through this budget our ability to 

respond to the tremendously fluid situations in which we find ourselves. You will note that in this budget there is a $100 million request for a conflict response fund. Very often between budget cycles, we have to borrow money from accounts and then try to pay 

it back because things happen that we did not expect. I can give 

you many examples, Liberia, Haiti, positive examples like Ukraine, 

and we want to be able to be more responsive to those kinds of 

emergency situations. 

We are also pursuing, at the same time that we pursue the democratization of places like the Middle East and remaining places 

in Europe, a very active agenda for the countries that still need to 

find their way out of poverty and in to greater prosperity. Indeed, 

the real challenge of many places, for instance, in our neighborhood, like Latin America, is to take what are already very strong 

democratic traditions now, very strong democratic impulses to 

strengthen those institutions and to make democracy begin to pay 

off for the people. We have seen a lot of turbulence in Latin America over the last couple of years because people are getting restless 

and are beginning to wonder if democracy will pay off. 

TRADE AGENDA, CAFTA VOTE

I want, in that regard, just to draw everyone’s attention to the 

importance of our trade agenda in providing opportunity for countries, particularly in this region. In that regard, we will soon have 

an important vote on CAFTA. The Central American presidents 

were just here today with the President. They will tell you that 

this is a matter for them that is essential to their continued existence as democratic states. They are being challenged by ‘‘populists’’ 

across the board. In a place like Nicaragua, for instance, that challenge is coming from an old foe, the Sandinistas. We do not want 

to abandon the playing field in Central America and in Latin 

America to a ‘‘populism’’ of a kind that would take us back to the 

1980’s. Having gone there once, let us not go there again. And so 

I just call to your attention the importance of the trade agenda and 

of CAFTA in particular. 

Finally, as Senator Leahy has noted, America is a country of 

great strength. It is a country of great values, but it is also a country of great compassion. We have tried very hard to let people who 

are still in poverty, people who are in need, people who face disease 

or humanitarian disaster, know that the United States will be 

there for them. 

PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS

We are working on any number of conflicts in the world, Liberia, 

the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, and we do it through 

peacekeeping and through our ability to support others in peacekeeping operations. I just ask you to help with those missions with 

needed funds. 

Of course, we have a major effort in disease alleviation through 

the President’s emergency program for AIDS and other communicable diseases. 
9 

DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE

Finally, let me speak to a point that Senator Leahy made which 

is about development assistance. We have, in this administration, 

increased development assistance by two times, twice since we 

have been in office over the last 4 years, and it is because the 

President believes that that doubling of development assistance 

represents the commitment that we have to helping those who 

need to come out of poverty. 

We do it recognizing, however, that we have had a long history 

of development assistance that did not do the job. It was very often 

wasted, and that was because too often development was not seen 

as a two-way street. Yes, there are responsibilities to make resources available, but there is also the responsibility of the recipient country to govern wisely, to govern transparently, to govern accountably, and to invest in the health and well-being of their people. 

MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE ACCOUNT

The design of the Millennium Challenge Account was to do exactly that. It was to make a compact with the recipient country 

that any program monies would be given to a recipient that was 

planning to govern wisely and that had a record of doing that and 

fighting corruption. 

The request this year for $3 billion for the Millennium Challenge 

Account anticipates the fact that while only one compact has been 

signed, and that is with Madagascar, that we are seeking to conclude compacts with 10 more countries by the end of 2005. Those 

countries include Honduras, Ghana, Nicaragua, Senegal, Mozambique, Sri Lanka, Armenia, and Georgia. 

Let me just close by saying one word about Georgia. The pictures 

that you saw from Georgia were the pictures in Freedom Square, 

which were extraordinary. It was especially extraordinary for me 

as an old Soviet specialist to stand in this former Soviet republic 

and hear the Georgian people sing their long-banned Georgian national anthem and then to sing the American national anthem. It 

showed what our partnership means with small countries that are 

willing to take risks for democracy. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

But what they mostly wanted to talk about, in addition to problems that they might have with their big neighbor, was their Millennium Challenge program because they believe that if they can 

get this compact finished, it is going to make a huge difference in 

their ability to complete infrastructure, and to have energy independence. They have made tremendous inroads in terms of corruption. I think that what we are beginning to see is that when we 

have an incentive out there like the Millennium Challenge Account, people are responsive to it. So I ask you to think about 

where we are going with the Millennium Challenge Account. I 

think it is one of the great innovations in development assistance 

and it helps to show the heart of America. 

So thank you very much. 

[The statement follows:] 
10 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CONDOLEEZZA RICE

Thank you, Chairman McConnell, Mr. Leahy, Honorable Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to address the Committee at this time of challenge, hope and opportunity for America, and for the world. And I look forward to 

working with the Congress to build a strong bipartisan consensus behind America’s 

foreign policy and to ensure that the men and women of American diplomacy have 

the resources they need to conduct their vital mission. 

The President’s fiscal year 2006 International Affairs Budget for the Department 

of State, USAID and other foreign affairs agencies totals $33.6 billion. 

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Members of this Committee for 

their support and leadership in the passing the fiscal year 2005 Emergency Supplemental. This urgently needed funding will support immediate political, economic, 

humanitarian, and operational needs that will allow us to meet new challenges— 

and seize new opportunities—to build a better, safer, and freer world. 

The supplemental international affairs funding of $5.8 billion will ensure that we 

are able to respond speedily and effectively to the needs of our steadfast coalition 

partners in the War on Terror, to newly elected governments in Afghanistan, Iraq, 

the Palestinian territories and Ukraine who need our stabilizing assistance to move 

forward with reforms, to those seeking democracy assistance in Belarus and Lebanon, and to the men, women and children uprooted by war, as in Sudan, or swept 

up in natural disasters, such as the recent East Asia tsunami. The supplemental 

funds will also cover the extraordinary security and support costs of operating our 

current embassy in Baghdad, and the construction of a secure new embassy compound for our mission, as well as $60 million for the security and operations of our 

embassy in Kabul. 

Now, if I may, Mr. Chairman, I will begin my testimony on the fiscal year 2006 

Budget Request with an overview of President Bush’s foreign policy mission, which 

we seek this Committee’s support to advance. 

In the long term, as President Bush said, ‘‘The only force powerful enough to stop 

the rise of tyranny and terror, and replace hatred with hope, is the force of human 

freedom.’’ Through diplomacy, the United States can create new possibilities for 

freedom and fresh hope across the globe. We must deal with the world as it is, but 

we do not accept it as it is. In places like Afghanistan and Ukraine, Iraq and the 

Palestinian territories, Lebanon and Georgia, people’s desire for freedom and a better future is redefining what many thought possible in these societies. 

President Bush has charged the men and women of the Department of State with 

helping to create a balance of power in the world that favors human liberty, and 

that is exactly what we are doing. Together with our democratic partners around 

the world, we are advancing a forward strategy of freedom. 

Our cooperation with international partners is dramatically evident in Afghanistan, where last month I saw first-hand the progress that country has made towards 

stability, reconstruction, and democracy. The Presidential election last year was an 

inspiration to the world. Next September, Afghanistan’s citizens, men and women 

alike, will again go to the polls, this time to elect a parliament. Afghanistan still 

faces many challenges, including the narcotics trade that could undermine its 

strides on so many fronts. We are committed to a comprehensive counter-narcotics 

strategy and a long-term reconstruction strategy because we believe in the future 

of a new, democratic Afghanistan—an Afghanistan that is no longer a haven for terrorists and tyrants, but a partner in security and freedom. 

To build on the positive momentum in Afghanistan, President Bush has requested 

nearly $1.1 billion in total U.S. funding, including $956 million in foreign assistance 

support. This money will be used to invest in security, health, education, clean 

water and free market infrastructure, which together create conditions for sustained 

growth, opportunity, and to continue the fight against drugs. 

This is also a very important year for Iraq, as the Iraqis write their constitution 

and hold national elections in December. When President Bush traveled to Europe 

in February, he and his counterparts not only turned the page on Iraq, they wrote 

a new chapter. All 26 NATO allies are now contributing to the NATO Training Mission in Iraq. The European Union announced its willingness to co-host an international conference with the United States to encourage and coordinate international support for Iraq. We have followed up on this initiative with the European 

Commission, the European Parliament, EU Member States, other countries around 

the world, and the Iraqi Government. Today, in the midst of a tough security situation, Iraqis at all levels—from the town council in Fallujah to the President of the 

country—are engaging in the democratic process and they need and deserve our 

support. 
11 

For Iraq, President Bush has requested $457 million of support for fiscal year 2006, including $360 million to continue work already begun under the Iraq Relief 

and Reconstruction Fund. These monies would be targeted towards helping the new 

Iraqi leadership create a functioning democracy and a justice system governed by 

the rule of law. This funding also will help the Iraqi government deliver basic services to its people, collect revenues, generate jobs and develop a free market system 

capable of joining the global economy. 

We and our democratic allies are putting the power of our partnership to work 

not only in Afghanistan and Iraq, but all across the Broader Middle East and North 

Africa. Efforts to encourage democratization, economic reform, the growth of civil society and opportunity for all through education are critical to shaping a stable and 

prosperous future for this strategically important region. Recognizing this, through 

the G–8 we have established the Forum for the Future—a new partnership between 

the democratic world and nations of this vast region, and we are committed to ensuring that the Forum plays a central role in advancing indigenous reform efforts 

in this vast region extending from Morocco to Pakistan. 

In early March in London, I participated in an important conference of major donors, including regional states, to help the Palestinian people advance their political, security and economic reforms and build infrastructure for self-government. 

The World Economic Forum in Jordan is expected to give further impetus to political and economic reform in the region. 

The path of reform in the Broader Middle East will be difficult and uneven. Freedom’s work is the work of generations. But it is also urgent work that cannot be 

deferred. 

From Morocco to Bahrain to Afghanistan, we are seeing new protections for 

women and minorities, and the beginnings of political pluralism. We have seen an 

opening toward broader participation in the first-ever municipal elections in Saudi 

Arabia. President Mubarak announced Egypt’s intention to open up competition in 

Egypt’s presidential elections. In the Palestinian territories and in Iraq we have witnessed remarkably free and successful elections. And in Lebanon we have witnessed 

the dramatic popular demonstrations for freedom and against the continued manipulation of the government and politics by outsiders. 

The will of the people of Lebanon to make their own decisions and throw off the 

mantle of oppression is clear. The people of Lebanon have an enormous opportunity 

to bring about peaceful change with elections. We and many others support them 

by insisting on the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon, as required by 

U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559, and by supporting free and fair elections. 

In support of these hopeful trends across the region toward freedom and democratic government, the fiscal year 2006 budget request proposes enhanced funding 

for diplomatic and assistance activities in the Middle East, North Africa and other 

countries with significant Muslim populations. The request includes $120 million for 

the Middle East Partnership Initiative for reform, $40 million for the National Endowment for Democracy to expand efforts to promote democracy in the Broader Middle East and North Africa region, $180 million for Muslim outreach through educational and cultural exchanges, and increases for a wide range of other public diplomacy and broadcasting initiatives geared toward Muslim publics, particularly 

young people. 

Of course, the process of reform in the broader Middle East is not detached from 

what must happen between the Israelis and Palestinians toward realizing President 

Bush’s vision of an independent Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace with 

the State of Israel. 

The Palestinian elections, and the Israeli withdrawal plan for Gaza and parts of 

the West Bank, have created a unique opportunity for peace. In fact, when I met 

with both Prime Minister Sharon and President Abbas they had the same opening 

line: This is an opportunity for peace we must not miss. 

President Bush has announced an additional $350 million to help the Palestinians 

build infrastructure and sustain the reform process over the next two years, including the $150 million in the fiscal year 2006 budget. I’d like to thank the Congress 

for supporting the President’s efforts by providing the $200 million included in the 

fiscal year 2005 Supplemental. This is an important show of support for President 

Abbas. Our fiscal year 2006 budget request also contains $2.5 billion in assistance 

to Israel, which continues our longstanding strategic partnership and supports regional democracy and security. 

Even as we work with allies and friends to meet the great challenge of advancing 

freedom and peace in the broader Middle East and North Africa, we will seize other 

important opportunities to build a world of peace and hope. 

For example, the U.S.-led global war on terrorism has put Pakistan and India on 

the same side against extremism. We have de-hyphenated our relationship with 
12 

Pakistan and with India, building strong, independent ties with each. At the same 

time that our relations with India have been moving forward we have the best relations with Pakistan that perhaps we have ever had, deepening our cooperation with 

Pakistan in the war on terrorism, supporting President Musharraf’s modernization 

efforts and the liberalization of Pakistan’s economy. 

During my March trip to Pakistan and India, on behalf of President Bush I congratulated both countries for the steps they have taken toward warmer relations 

with each other. In Islamabad, I discussed the need to chart a democratic path for 

Pakistan, including the holding of national elections in 2007. With India, the world’s 

largest democracy, we are cooperating on a global strategy for peace, and on defense, energy and growth. A few weeks ago, India’s Foreign Minister met with President Bush and they discussed ways we might accelerate our cooperation still further 

and we look forward to a July visit by Prime Minister Singh. 

The future of Asia is very dynamic. Our alliances and relationships in Asia— 

starting with our critical strategic and economic ties with Japan—will be profoundly 

important in creating a stable, prosperous, democratic region and world. 

Much of Asia’s dynamism comes from an emerging China whose economy has become an engine of regional and global growth. This new factor in international politics requires us to incorporate China more fully into the global system. 

We are working with China in context of its WTO commitments to address outstanding concerns related to that ongoing integration effort, particularly on issues 

such as intellectual property rights, financial sector reform and improved market access. We believe that we and our allies and friends can help foster an environment 

in which a rising China acts as a positive force. We want China as a global partner, 

able and willing to match its growing capabilities to its international responsibilities. And we believe that China must eventually embrace some form of open, genuinely representative government if it is to realize the full talents of the Chinese people and fully reap the benefits and meet the challenges of a globalizing world. 

Last month, I participated in the NATO Ministerial meeting, held for the first 

time in Lithuania, one of NATO’s newest members. I just accompanied President 

Bush on his visit to another new NATO ally, Latvia, where he had a very positive 

and constructive meeting with the leaders of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. The expansion of the North Atlantic alliance to 26 members including the three Baltic 

states marks the further advance of democracy and freedom throughout Europe. 

From Riga, we stopped in Maastricht, Netherlands, to pay tribute to those who 

served and sacrificed in the Second World War and to those who are standing with 

us today in defense of democracy and freedom in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. 

From The Netherlands, the President and I traveled to Russia to mark the 60th 

anniversary of the end of World War II. The visit and ceremonies in Moscow were 

an opportunity to thank those who so bravely fought for the victory over fascism. 

President Bush continued his dialogue with President Putin about U.S.-Russian relations and about Russia’s future. In his recent State-of-the-Union address, President Putin stressed his commitment to democracy and we look forward to seeing 

how his words get translated into deeds. President Bush also met with civil society 

leaders and emphasized that a democratic, vibrant, prosperous Russia is in everyone’s interests. 

We then went to Georgia, where we witnessed the enthusiasm of a new democracy 

first hand. And President Bush underscored to President Saakashvili our support 

for the independence, territorial integrity and strengthening of that young democracy. 

The seeds of democracy in Georgia, which truly blossomed from the Rose Revolution of November 2003, served as an inspiration a year later to those in Ukraine 

who refused to accept a stolen election. The political transformation within Ukraine 

has meant a new dynamic in Ukraine’s relationship with the United States and our 

allies. At the NATO Ministerial last month, the alliance extended an invitation to 

Ukraine to begin an Intensified Dialogue on Membership Issues, raising NATO’s cooperation with Ukraine to a new level. All of us welcomed the new leader of 

Ukraine, Viktor Yushchenko, to Washington. We recognize that he has a lot to do 

to reform his country, and we have a strong interest in ensuring the success of a 

democratic Ukraine. 

In Kyrgyzstan, the change of government precipitated by popular discontent over 

election fraud and government corruption will be followed by new presidential elections July 10. These elections offer Kyrgyzstan the opportunity to establish new 

democratic benchmarks for Central Asia. Working closely with our OSCE partners, 

we will provide assistance to ensure the elections are conducted freely and fairly. 

Beyond the elections, we look forward to working with a legitimately elected government to establish the basis for prosperity and stability for Kyrgyzstan and the region. 
13 

Several weeks ago, I visited Brazil, Colombia, and El Salvador and took part in 

the Community of Democracies Meeting in Santiago, Chile. Our efforts in the hemisphere, in Africa and across the developing world are designed to help strengthen 

fellow democracies so that they can deliver the benefits of democracy to their citizens and help them escape poverty. Our policy is also guided by the principle that 

leaders who are elected democratically have a responsibility to govern democratically. We are working in partnership with developing nations to fight corruption, 

instill the rule of law, and create a culture of transparency that will attract the 

trade and investment crucial to poverty reduction. 

At the Monterrey Summit in 2002, all nations agreed that economic growth is essential to fighting poverty, and that development assistance works best when it goes 

to countries that adopt growth-oriented policies. This concept underlies the President’s revolutionary Millennium Challenge Account initiative. We seek $3 billion for 

the third year of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, which helps countries that 

govern justly, adopt sound economic policies and invest in the welfare of their people. We also seek $2.4 billion in development, child survival and health assistance. 

The fiscal year 2006 Budget exceeds the President’s 2002 commitment for overall 

growth in core development assistance by requesting a total of $19.8 billion, $8.2 

billion more than in 2002. 

We will also help countries enhance their capabilities to protect their citizens from 

traffickers and terrorists. 

Our fiscal year 2006 request includes $735 million for the Andean Counter Drug 

Initiative to consolidate gains made in recent years in eradication, interdiction and 

alternative development. We are requesting $5.8 billion in assistance to our front-line partners in the global 

war on terror. Through the provision of equipment and training, this assistance will 

help give military, police and other security forces the tools they need to destroy 

terrorist cells, disrupt terrorist operations, strengthen border controls, and prevent 

attacks. This assistance will also help advance economic growth and democratic reform, providing new opportunities for their citizens and addressing the hopelessness 

that terrorists seek to exploit. The request includes $698 million for Pakistan; $559 

million for Colombia; $462 million for Jordan; $213 million for Kenya; and $159 million for Indonesia. 

When they engage effectively, multilateral institutions can multiply the strength of freedom-loving nations. We are requesting $1.3 billion in support for the multilateral development banks, with which our bilateral assistance missions partner 

abroad to reinforce effective economic reform strategies. In addition, we are seeking 

$100 million in debt relief for the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries initiative, an effort we are pursuing in concert with the G–7, other key lending countries, and the 

international financial institutions. We are requesting nearly $1.3 billion for U.S. 

obligations to 47 international organizations, including the United Nations, and a 

little over $1 billion to pay projected U.S. assessments for U.N. peacekeeping missions. And we are seeking $114 million to enhance the peacekeeping capabilities of 

non-U.N. forces, with a particular focus on Africa. 

We are encouraged by the African Union’s leadership in addressing conflicts 

across the continent, specifically its mission in Darfur. The African Union military 

commanders in Darfur are doing vital work in providing security for millions of displaced people. We welcome the AU’s decision to double the size of its Darfur mission 

to enhance its ability to protect civilians, and we appreciate your help through the 

Supplemental to support this expanded mission. We fully appreciate the urgency of 

the situation and we encourage the AU’s consultations with NATO on potential 

logistical assistance that would enable the AU forces to expand quickly and sustain 

their operations. 

Meanwhile, we are doing all we can to ensure that the displaced people get the 

basic humanitarian supplies they need until such time as secure conditions are established that enable them to return to a normal life. And we are pressing for 

prompt implementation of the North-South Comprehensive Peace Agreement, because that accord creates a possible political framework for resolving conflicts in 

Darfur and other regions of Sudan. At the same time, we are working to orchestrate 

an international message to the Government of Sudan: They are responsible for conditions in Darfur and must cooperate to stop the killing and create a path for peaceful reconciliation. 

Thanks to Congress’s strong backing, last month at the Oslo Donors’ Conference 

to support the peace agreement, we were able to pledge $853 million to help Sudan 

in fiscal year 2005. Most recently in the Supplemental, Congress provided additional 

support to help meet the needs of implementing the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in the south of Sudan and keep humanitarian supplies flowing to Darfur. I 

thank you for your generosity and look forward to further strong congressional sup-
14 

port for Sudan through the fiscal year 2006 Budget. Given the enormity of the humanitarian, security, and political challenge, your continued backing is critical. 

Sudan is but one, terrible example of the broader challenge we face. Chaos, corruption and cruelty reign can pose threats to their neighbors, to their regions, and 

to the entire world. And so we are working to strengthen international capacities 

to address conditions in failed, failing and post-conflict states. President Bush has 

charged us at the State Department with coordinating our nation’s post-conflict and 

stabilization efforts and we are asking for $24 million in operating funds for the new 

Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization housed in the Department. I also appreciate the $7.7 million Congress has provided in supplemental 

funds for start-up and personnel costs for the Office of the Coordinator. The fiscal 

year 2006 budget proposes a $100 million Conflict Response Fund to quickly address 

emerging needs and help deploy trained and experienced civilian personnel immediately to an unstable region. 

The United States must stay at the forefront of the global campaign against HIV/ 

AIDS, providing half of the global assistance to fight this scourge. The President is 

requesting $3.2 billion in total U.S. funding for care, treatment and prevention efforts. We will demonstrate the compassion of the American people in other ways as 

well. Through our continued support of international and non-governmental organizations, we will ensure that America remains the world’s most generous food and 

non-food humanitarian assistance provider. We seek $3 billion in food aid and famine relief and non-food humanitarian assistance, including support for fragile states. 

In all of these endeavors, the primary instrument of American diplomacy will be 

the dedicated men and women of the Department of State. We would welcome your 

help as members of the full committee in ensuring that our people are well equipped 

for the challenges ahead in terms of training, technologies and safe workplaces. Secretary Powell and his team made important progress in these areas and we must 

build on the foundation they established. 

We are requesting $1.5 billion for security-related construction and physical security and rehabilitation of U.S. embassies and consulates, and $690 million to increase security for diplomatic personnel and facilities. We have a solemn obligation 

to protect the people of our diplomatic missions and their families, who serve at our 

far-flung posts in the face of a global terrorist threat. 

We must strengthen the recruitment of new personnel. We are seeking $57 million for 221 new positions to meet core staffing and training requirements. And as 

we seek out new talent, we also seek to further diversify our workforce in the process. We send an important signal to the rest of the world about our values and what 

they mean in practice when we are represented abroad by people of all cultures, 

races, and religions. Of course, we also must cultivate the people we already have 

in place—by rewarding achievement, encouraging initiative, and offering a full 

range of training opportunities. That includes the training and support needed to 

make full use of new technologies and tools, and we are asking for $249 million for 

investment in information technology. 

Public diplomacy will be a top priority for me, as I know it is for this Committee, 

and the fiscal year 2006 request includes $328 million for activities to engage, inform and influence foreign publics. America and all free nations are facing a 

generational struggle against a new and deadly ideology of hatred. We must do a 

better job of confronting hostile propaganda, dispelling dangerous myths, and telling 

America’s story. In some cases, that may mean we need to do more of what we are 

already doing, and in other cases, it may mean we need new ways of doing business. 

If our public diplomacy efforts are to succeed, we cannot close ourselves off from 

the world. We are asking for $931 million to improve border security and for an increase of $74 million over fiscal year 2005 for educational and cultural exchange 

programs, bringing the total to $430 million in fiscal year 2006. We will continue 

to work closely with the Department of Homeland Security to identify and prevent 

terrorists and other adversaries from doing harm, even as we maintain the fundamental openness that gives our democracy its dynamism and makes our country a 

beacon for international tourists, students, immigrants, and businesspeople. We will 

keep America’s doors open and our borders secure. 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, this time of global transformation 

calls for transformational diplomacy. More than ever, America’s diplomats will need 

to be active in spreading democracy, reducing poverty, fighting terror and doing our 

part to protect our homeland. And more than ever, we will need your support if we 

are to succeed in our vital mission for the American people. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you 

and the other distinguished Committee Members may have. 
15 

BURMA SANCTIONS

Senator MCCONNELL. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

I want to ask you one quick question just for the record, and 

then I am going to turn to Iran. I assume you support the renewal 

of sanctions, including an import ban and visa restrictions against 

the military junta in Burma. 

Secretary RICE. Absolutely. 

IRAN

Senator MCCONNELL. We will be moving forward with that this 

year. 

Looking at the morning paper, it certainly reminds us again of 

the Iranian challenge. The article in the Washington Post that I 

read discussed the task undertaken by the British, the French, and 

the Germans and the rather stern statement that they have issued 

to the Iranians. I know that it must have come up when you and 

the President were with President Putin in Russia. 

What is the state of play of the whole Iranian nuclear issue? 

What can you tell us publicly about what you discussed with President Putin in relation to the Russians’ relationship to Iran? In 

short, give us an update on where we are. 

Secretary RICE. Certainly. Well, as you know, Senator, we have 

been supporting the EU–3 negotiations with the Iranians, and we 

have called on the Iranians to take advantage of the opportunity 

that the Europeans have given them to demonstrate that they are 

prepared to live up to their international obligations. That means 

that the Iranians cannot be allowed to develop the technologies 

that would lead them to be able to build a nuclear weapon under 

cover of a civilian nuclear program. 

We have excellent cooperation with the Europeans on this. The 

Iranians have been making various threats publicly. We are following it very closely, but it is our hope that the Iranians are going 

to continue these negotiations because it is really the only reliable 

way for them to really be a part of the international system and 

to be accepted there. 

The Security Council always remains an option should the Iranians not live up to their obligations, but we are still hopeful that 

they will recognize where they are. 

With regard to the Russians, we have been in very close contact 

with them. While we do not believe, Senator, that the Iranians 

need a civilian nuclear power program, given their abundance of 

hydrocarbon sources, we nonetheless recognize that the Russians, 

upon agreeing to give them the Bushehr reactor, have built in a 

number of proliferation safeguards that could be quite useful. For 

instance, the Russians have said that they would provide fuel, but 

then there would have to be a fuel take-back so that the Iranians 

would not keep the capability of being able to use that fuel to develop nuclear weapons. This is, in many ways, very close to a proposal that the President made at the National Defense University, 

that there ought to be provision of fuel, but that the transfer of the 

technologies of reprocessing and enrichment should not continue. 
16 

So we are watching the situation. We are in very close contact 

with our allies, but we are hopeful that the Iranians are going to 

take the deal that is being given to them. 

RUSSIAN TROOPS IN GEORGIA AND ARMENIA/AZERBAIJAN

Senator MCCONNELL. Turning to another part of your trip, could 

you give us an update of the likelihood of Russian troops remaining 

in Georgia for a long time? 

Also, even though it may not have been on your agenda, I have 

had a longstanding interest in the Armenia/Azerbaijan dispute over 

Nagorno-Karabakh, and the presence of Russian troops in Armenia, which the Armenians say is because of their concern about the 

Turks. Nevertheless, is there anything new in that area that you 

could share with us? 

Secretary RICE. Senator, on the Azerbaijan/Armenia/NagornoKarabakh situation, I cannot report that there is anything new. 

But as you know, we had made considerable progress several years 

ago, and it looked like we were going to be able to perhaps even 

resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. We were not able to do it at 

the time. We continue to have the Minsk Group that works on this. 

We want to redouble our efforts again to see if we can go back 

and see if we can try and resolve this issue. We have been discussing with the Russians the need to deal with what we are calling frozen conflicts like Nagorno-Karabakh. I have had discussions 

with my counterpart, Sergei Lavarov. We believe it would be a very 

useful thing. Armenia and Azerbaijan are suffering from this conflict, suffering that investment is low, suffering that they really 

cannot stabilize their political situations, suffering, we believe, in 

the presence of foreign troops. So we would like very much to try 

and get this resolved, and we will try and redouble our efforts. 

On the Georgian bases, it was very interesting to first hear the 

Russians and then hear the Georgians on this. The Russians, as 

you know, agreed that they would leave these bases in Georgia. It 

has now been a question of when and how. When you listen to 

some, they say that they are actually closing in on a deal. Others 

say maybe they are not so close. But while we are not trying to get 

involved in the details of it in some sort of mediator role—that 

would not be appropriate for us—we are really encouraging the 

Russians to get this done and to remove their forces so that Georgia can regain that element of their national sovereignty. The Russians say that they intend to leave, that it is now just a matter of 

how and the dates. But we are encouraging them very strongly to 

do it as quickly as possible. 

ABKHAZIA/SOUTH OSSETIA

Senator MCCONNELL. And finally, what about internal Georgian 

issues like Abkhazia, for example? 

Secretary RICE. Our message to the Georgians about Abkhazia 

and South Ossetia was that, first of all, these cannot be resolved 

by military force, that the United States would not support the use 

of military force to resolve these conflicts. There has to be a political solution. The Georgians are talking in terms that probably are 

going to be helpful in places like South Ossetia when they talk 
17 

about greater local autonomy over decision-making. But these are 

part of a territorially integrous Georgia. 

So one of the things that the President did during his stay there 

was to have conversations across the region, in Georgia as well, 

about the need to protect minority rights, about the need to build 

multi-ethnic democracies because, if you think about it, if each of 

these separatist regions tries to start pulling away, there is not 

going to be much left of the territorial integrity of Georgia. So better for Georgia to have a sense of protecting minority rights, protecting the ability of people to govern their own affairs locally. But 

we speak very clearly for the territorial integrity of Georgia, and 

we have said that to the Russians as well. 

RUSSIA

Senator MCCONNELL. I am going to sneak in just one final, very 

quick question. I read somewhere that there was some suggestion 

that Stalin might be enjoying a bit of a comeback in Russia. Since 

he was originally, obviously, from Georgia, does his name ever 

come up in Georgia, or is it like he did not exist? 

Secretary RICE. It does not really come up in Georgia and it does 

not come up much in Russia either. In fact, despite the fact that 

it was the celebration of the end of World War II, I think I saw 

one poster, kind of old vintage poster, in this regard. 

I might just for the committee’s sense of it, it was quite interesting because the large boulevard Daverska in Moscow was decorated with all kinds of banners to the great victory, glory to Russia, 

with a fair amount of advertisement thrown in for various cell 

phone companies and various dressmakers and the like. So it was 

a little bit incongruous for somebody like me. 

Senator MCCONNELL. I think we would all agree Stalin deserves 

no comeback. 

Secretary RICE. Right. 

Senator MCCONNELL. Senator Leahy. 

BALANCING MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION AND FOREIGN

ASSISTANCE FUNDING

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. I find the description interesting. I 

remember my first trip to Russia in 1975 with Senator Javits and 

Senator Hugh Scott, as the Republican leader at the Senate at the 

time, and Senator Hubert Humphrey. There have been dramatic 

changes since those days. 

We discussed the Millennium Challenge. There is support, as you 

understand, for it. We just do not want it to be either/or. We want 

to make sure we maintain the commitments originally made, that 

we are not going to cut child health programs and we are not going 

to cut development programs, we are not going to cut programs to 

eradicate disease, and the other things that show the best face of 

America around the world. We need to support the Millennium 

Challenge and also to keep these other commitments. 

I will be the first to agree that not every program works. I have 

voted to get rid of programs that did not work. We have an awful 

lot of programs that do work and need more resources to do more. 

A recent New York Times article said the World Bank, the IMF, 

British Prime Minister Blair, and others have called for the dou-
18 

bling of aid for the poorest countries. You and I were in Davos and 

we heard Chancellor Brown say similar things. The United States 

has not taken a position. I look at Africa with 700 million people. 

It gets about the same amount of aid as we give to Iraq with 25 

million people. Actually the aid to rebuild Iraq is a lot more than 

we give to the entire world. The amount of aid we give is a lot of 

money, but it is a smaller percentage of our gross national income 

than any donor country, I think, except Italy. 

Is this a trend that will continue? 

Secretary RICE. Well, Senator, I would make a couple of points. 

First of all, on what we are actually doing in the budget in terms 

of development assistance and the relationship between that and 

the Millennium Challenge, the development assistance request is 

essentially a kind of straight-line request from what we requested 

last year. As you know, some of the decrease is represented by the 

fact that $275 million for Afghanistan and Ethiopia and Haiti and 

Sudan is now covered under something called the transition account. So it is a little bit masked there. The development assistance is pretty much a straight line. 

But as to the .7 target that people use in terms of official development assistance, I think that we believe that we should, of 

course, make resources available, which is why we have doubled official development assistance over the last 4 years. 

Senator LEAHY. But if we take out the money for the Millennium 

Challenge, the only way we do it is to take money from some of 

these basic needs. You and I should have a longer discussion on 

this, but that is a real concern. We can make the promises. You 

and I can agree on every one of these programs, but if the money 

is not there, it is like Hotspur and calling them from the depths. 

Anybody can call them, but will they come when you call. 

Let me ask you this. Charles Taylor. You and the President met 

with Nigerian President Obasanjo last week. 

CHARLES TAYLOR

A lot of us have discussed how to get Charles Taylor before the 

Special Court for Sierra Leone. He is an indicted war criminal responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people. He wants 

a return to power. He is meddling in the affairs of other countries, 

without going into areas beyond what has been in the press. We 

all know he is. 

Why are we having so little influence getting him to the Court? 

I see Senator Gregg, my neighbor from New Hampshire. He and 

I and other Members of Congress have been urging stronger action. 

We have written letters, Republicans and Democrats. The other 

body has been the same way. This is a despicable, horrible person. 

He is a mass murderer. Why do we not bring him to justice and 

show the rest of the world that this is what happens to mass murderers? 

Secretary RICE. Senator, there is no doubt that we believe that 

Charles Taylor should be brought to justice. We have communicated that very clearly and strongly to the Nigerian Government. 

I would just say I would hope we would step back and look at 

what the Nigerian Government did at the time when we were trying to get Charles Taylor out of Liberia so that we could end the 
19 

state of civil war there and begin to move forward. President 

Obasanjo, President Kufuor of Ghana, South African President 

Mbeke, and others went and they actually took him out of Liberia, 

and they did that really on behalf of the international community. 

We want to, therefore, work with them in a way that for them 

works for them to get him out of the country and to one of the 

courts. I would not focus just on Sierra Leone. 

Senator LEAHY. The longer we take, the more he is fomenting. 

The harder it is going to be. How long can the Special Court in Sierra Leone, which is prepared to take him—how long can it wait? 

COLOMBIAN PARAMILITARIES

I am going to have some other questions on the demobilization 

of Colombian paramilitaries, following up on the letter that Senator 

Lugar, Congressman Hyde, Senator Dodd, Congressman Lantos, 

and I sent to President Uribe. We have spent billions down there. 

We were told they were going to cut coca production by half. We 

have eradicated a lot. A lot of coca is still cultivated. The price is 

still the same on our streets. We have human rights conditions on 

our aid. They are always certified by the State Department. We 

have doubts about whether they are being met. When you get a 

group like Senator Lugar, Congressman Hyde, Senator Dodd, Congressman Lantos, and myself we are crossing the political spectrum 

here. We really are concerned about what is happening in Colombia. I have a great deal of respect for President Uribe, but I am 

concerned about what is happening especially with the 

paramilitaries. 

Senator MCCONNELL. Thank you, Senator Leahy. 

The order will be Senator Gregg, followed by Senator Landrieu, 

and then Senator DeWine. Senator Gregg. 

Senator GREGG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is great to have you here, Secretary. It is wonderful to have 

you serving as the Secretary of State. Obviously, you follow an individual who did an extraordinary job, but you have managed to 

take his legacy and carry it forward with great ability and given 

us pride as a Nation that you are representing us around the 

world. 

BALANCING STATE OPERATIONS AND FOREIGN AID

One of the things that has happened here is that we have 

merged the State Department’s two functions, the foreign aid function with the operational function by bringing it under this committee. I guess one of my concerns as the person who had jurisdiction under a prior incantation of the operational functions is that 

we not lose sight of the fact that you really cannot do a good job 

in foreign aid unless you maintain the strength of your operational 

side. 

The problem, of course, is it is very easy to raid things like the 

accounts for taking care of getting our embassies up to speed, as 

far as hardening them, the accounts for IT. I believe now the State 

Department has probably the best IT program in the entire Government, at least in my experience. And various other functions of 

just day-to-day operations. So I hope you will keep an eye out that 

the great strides which were made we do not turn back on. 
20 

One little minor point I would mention is that we had initiated 

an effort not only to get our embassies and facilities up to a better 

standard of security, but we had also started an effort to reach out 

to targets where our children of embassy personnel go, schools, especially American schools. That initiative was small but it was 

huge in its impact on those schools. They were able to do things 

relative to security, which was important. I hope we will continue 

that initiative. 

NORTH KOREA, PROGRESS OF TALKS

On the broader issue, you have to be so conversant in so many 

areas, and you certainly are. Tell us what is happening with North 

Korea and especially what is happening with working with China 

and Japan and South Korea to try to orchestrate an effort there 

that is multilateral to do something. 

Secretary RICE. Well, we continue, Senator Gregg, to try with the 

Chinese, the Russians, the Japanese, and the South Koreans to 

hold a united front that lets the North Koreans know that there 

really is not any option but for them to abandon their nuclear 

weapons programs if they really do wish to be integrated in the 

international system. It has, obviously, its ups and downs because 

the North Koreans tend to threaten. They tend to draw attention 

to themselves with all kinds of announcements. But I think that 

the underlying fact has not been altered and that is that all of 

their neighbors are telling them that there is only one way out of 

this. 

Now, obviously, there are concerns. There are concerns that they 

would try and make something more dramatic like a test. You have 

been reading that people have talked about that. They are concerned that there might be proliferation from North Korea. Those 

are all things that we keep in mind and keep an eye on. But the 

key here is to really continue to keep a united front on the North 

Korean program. 

I know that the South Koreans and the Chinese are urging the 

North Koreans to return to the Six Party Talks. That is very important, but we want them return to the Six Party Talks not just 

to return to the Six Party Talks, but to actually be ready to make 

a strategic choice about their nuclear weapons programs. We have 

told them security guarantees are available to them on a multilateral basis. Some of their neighbors have talked about providing 

them fuel oil under those circumstances. They have asked do we 

understand that they are sovereign. Yes, we understand that they 

are sovereign. So the North Koreans have not much to gain by 

what they are continuing to do, and they have quite a bit to gain 

by coming back to the talks. We hope that that logic will eventually 

prevail. 

STATE AND FOREIGN OPERATIONS

If I may, just on the point that you made earlier. I want to assure you, Senator Gregg, I have got my eye on that ball about our 

people, about our facilities, about where they work, about how they 

work, about the training, about the fact that we need to bring more 

language specialists in, critical language specialists, and about the 

need that we can never again afford to have the kind of situation 
21 

that we had in the 1990’s where we missed a whole set of classes 

of Foreign Service officers. The technology has to be right for our 

people. You make the point absolutely correctly, which is that we 

cannot do any of this without people and without our people having 

the means to do what they need to do. 

When I go out, I always do an embassy—we call them embassy 

meet and greets, and I go out and I see these people working really 

hard in difficult circumstances. Senator Leahy mentioned Colombia. They are out there literally fighting the narcotraffic wars, and 

they are in places helping the Colombians to do that. You go to Afghanistan. They are out there helping people build businesses. 

These are not people who are just sitting in their offices sending 

back cables. They are out there on the front lines really carrying 

out the hard work of democracy and development. So we owe them 

the very best that we can get them. 

Senator GREGG. Well, I thank you for that commitment, and I 

agree with it, obviously. I do hope that as you set up these efforts, 

that you remember, as we build these embassies such as the one 

that you are going to build in Baghdad, the vast majority of the 

utilization of that embassy is probably not going to be Foreign 

Service personnel. It is going to be from other functions within the 

Government. We have had a little problem getting them to participate in the underwriting of that. I do hope you will continue to 

press some of our other agencies to participate in that because it 

relieves the pressure on this committee specifically, but more importantly pressure on the State Department in funding things like 

IT and other areas. 

I thank you again for the great job you are doing. 

Secretary RICE. Thank you very much. 

Senator MCCONNELL. Thank you, Senator Gregg. 

Now we will turn to Senator Landrieu, followed by Senator 

DeWine and Senator Durbin. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Secretary, for 

being here today and for your service and the passion and intensity 

with which you undertake your job. I have always found it to be 

inspirational, and as a member of this committee, I look forward 

to working with you. 

I agree wholeheartedly with your comments, about our efforts to 

try to expand democracy and freedom where we can, that it clearly 

is in America’s interest. You mentioned some strategies you are undertaking and I hope we can work together to do that. Could you 

speak a moment about the special focus you’ve had on serving half 

the population in all of these countries, which are, of course, 

women? 

I am reminded of the images that we saw on the television before 

we went into Afghanistan. In large measure, it was ‘‘we are coming 

in to free you and to free the women and to get them out of oppression and into colleges.’’ Yet, we have been there now for several 

years and we do not hear too much about our success in that aspect. I only raise it because my own personal experience shows me 

that as we continue to try to build more capacity in these nations, 
22 

that making sure those resources are spread to both the future of 

men and the future of women is important. 

So if you could just comment about the status of women particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq, which I know is very troublesome 

still, but also in other parts of the Mideast, such as our allies in 

Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. What is our strategy for moving women 

into the forefront of society, having the right, to vote, own property, 

the right to exit a marriage if it is abusive, the right to full custody 

to children, the rights to an education, the rights to decent health 

care? Could you comment a bit about our efforts to bring democracy 

to that half of these nations? 

FOCUS ON WOMEN IN FOREIGN POLICY

Secretary RICE. Absolutely. Thank you, Senator Landrieu. 

We have had a very strong focus on women’s rights, women’s 

education, women’s empowerment, and the poverty reduction for 

women because one of the facts is that when poverty reduces for 

women, it gets better also for the whole society. Very often women 

in, for instance, small business orientation can help an entire society, and so you will find that we have done a lot with microfinance 

around the world, for instance, because there women take a little 

bit of money, they build a little business maybe in textiles or something, they employ other women, and the village does better as a 

result. So we are very focused on women’s empowerment in economies. 

We also are very focused on women’s education. Here I think 

there are good stories to tell. Girls are going to school in record 

numbers in Afghanistan in a place where they did not go to school. 

That is something that America has to be immensely proud of. 

When I was in Afghanistan, you would see that little girls are out 

there with their fathers and they are sort of a part of the life. That 

is going to continue to be a major focus for us. 

In a place like Pakistan, for instance, we are also funding programs in women’s education. 

Then it comes to the matter of women’s political rights which, of 

course, is the ultimate guarantee that women can defend themselves against societies that might try and subordinate them. In 

the places where we have had a direct impact like Iraq and Afghanistan, I think the story is good. It is true that there are still 

age-old attitudes, particularly in Afghanistan, less in Iraq, that are 

patriarchal in the way that women are viewed. But women are in 

legislatures. They are in ministries. In some cases, they are ministers. We have seen women insist on actual percentage quotas for 

women’s participation in political life. 

We have a couple of very important councils, the Afghan Women’s Council, which the First Lady has been very involved with. I 

have meet with Iraqi women political leaders when they are here. 

The best news is that while we are trying to empower women, they 

are clearly empowering themselves. They care about this. They are 

really organizing themselves. 

I met with a group of women in Afghanistan. They were women 

doctors and women lawyers and women human rights activists. 

There was also the first woman paratrooper in the Afghan armed 

forces, which was really quite something to see. 
23 

So I do not want to paint too rosy a picture because in many 

cases these are very traditional societies that are going to have to 

overcome a lot. But I do believe that women believe now that it is 

their rightful place, and when in Afghanistan, the constitution 

guaranteed that men and women are both citizens, we all sort of 

thought, well, that is great. They thought this was an extraordinary development. There is still work to do. 

I think it is fair to say we were disappointed about Kuwait, and 

eventually we hope that women will vote in both Kuwait and Saudi 

Arabia. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, I encourage you to continue. Not only 

are you personally a role model for what we are speaking about, 

but women of the world particularly look to you for that vocal, passionate leadership. When I was in Iraq, several of the soldiers, 

male soldiers, came up to me and said we are here to free everyone, 

and we want you to take that message back to the highest powers. 

So I have delivered it. 

HAGUE TREATY ON INTERNATIONAL ADOPTION

The second question, if I could. Are you aware of the Hague 

Treaty on International Adoption? I know you are responsible for 

many treaties, but this was one that was passed overwhelmingly 

by the Senate several years ago. Jesse Helms actually helped to 

lead this effort along with Joe Biden. We have not implemented it. 

We specifically requested from the former Secretary of State some 

action. Of course, other things have rightly received more priority. 

I raise this to you because it is an issue that is very important 

to Americans as a value of family life, and the value that children 

are really to be raised in families. Governments do a lot of things 

well. Raising children is not one of them. Children in our country 

and in the world should be raised in their biological family, in their 

extended family that is available if their parents are separated. I 

am wondering if you would make a commitment to look into that 

to see if we could get this treaty implemented. In exchange, we 

would agree on this committee to work with you to fund, whatever 

is necessary for you to do that. 

Secretary RICE. Thank you, Senator. I will look into it. I will get 

back to you with a report on where we are. 

Adoption has been an issue that, as you know, has been very important to the President. He very often raises these issues with 

people from around the world. He was just, not too long ago, raising this with the Romanians because we have had, of course, a 

number of issues there with Romania. 

But I will get back to you on what progress we have made. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Senator LANDRIEU. I know my time is up, but I will submit other 

questions on Uganda, the AIDS issue, and particularly the LRA in 

Uganda and what we are doing to address that conflict near the 

Sudan. 

Thank you. 

[The statement follows:] 
24 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

Madame Secretary, thank you for taking the time to be here this morning. As you 

know, I consider it a great privilege to serve as a member of this subcommittee at 

such a crucial time in our Nation’s history. While there are still some who doubt 

the need for foreign assistance and others who characterize it as charity, I see the 

aid we give to developing countries as strategic investments in freedom, democracy 

and the protection of human dignity. Providing financial assistance to developing 

countries, particularly in areas touch the every day lives of people such as health 

care, housing, nutrition, and education, allows us to help these countries more immediately realize the fruits of a democratic society. And in contrast, failing to provide such support, puts democracy at risk. In the words of former President John 

F. Kennedy, ‘‘To fail to meet those obligations... would be disastrous; and, in the 

long run, more expensive. For widespread poverty and chaos lead to a collapse of 

existing political and social structures which would inevitably invite the advance of 

totalitarianism into every weak and unstable area. Thus our own security would be 

endangered and our prosperity imperiled. A program of assistance to the underdeveloped nations must continue because the Nation’s interest and the cause of political freedom require it.’’ 

With this in mind, I look forward to having the opportunity to provide oversight 

and support to you and your agency. To me, it never made sense to have the federal 

agency charged with delivering foreign assistance under a different committee’s jurisdiction than the federal agency tasked with implementing foreign policy. I, for 

one, would like to see us work to forge a stronger connection between the funding 

distributed through USAID and the policies pursued by the State Department because I think that it is critical that we use our federal resources to strengthen and 

support U.S. policies abroad. I know that this is a concept that is, at least in part, 

supported by President Bush, as evidenced by his efforts to establish the Millennium Challenge Account. I hope that you and I can work together to explore other 

ways to strengthen this connection. 

There are several areas of foreign policy that I believe would benefit from this 

strengthened coordination. First, I see a need and an opportunity for the State Department’s to strengthen their role in the building and strengthening of families. As 

I have said many times, countries are not built on roads and buildings alone, their 

strength and vitality rests solely on the building, and sometimes, re-building of families. As the late Pope John Paul II was quoted as saying, ‘‘As the family goes, so 

goes the nation and so goes the whole world in which we live.’’ 

Madame Secretary, four years ago, I had the distinct pleasure of meeting for an 

hour with the former President of China, Jiang Jiamin on the issue of international 

adoption. During this meeting, he shared with us that the Chinese believe every 

child born is born with a red string attached to their heart, the other end of which 

is tied to the ankle of their soul mate. It is because of this string, they believe, that 

soul mates eventually find each other and spend the rest of their lives together. It 

is his belief, that perhaps the same is true of children who are adopted. That when 

they are born, their hearts have a string that is tied to the ankle of their forever 

family, and it because of that heartstring that they eventually find one another. 

I will treasure the memory of this meeting forever. Not only because it was an 

extreme honor to meet with such a learned and distinguished leader, but because 

it reminds me of how profoundly adoption affects the world we live in. 19,237 children were adopted by American citizens last year. 18,477 children the year before 

that, 16,363 in 1999 and 15,744 children in 1998. That is almost 100,000 children 

in four years. I think it is easy for us to understand the impact that these adoptions 

have had on the adoptive families and the orphan children, but what I would like 

to focus on afternoon is the impact that this has for the diplomatic relations between the United States and countries throughout the world. 

In sheer numbers alone, the impact is evident. In real terms, these children are 

‘‘mini-ambassadors’’ to 200,000 American citizen parents, 400,000 grandparents, 

conservatively 800,000 aunts and uncles, and 300,000 siblings. According to a recent 

report by the U.S. Census bureau, 1.6 million people in the United States were 

adopted, 15 percent of them from abroad. Because of this magnificent process, communities all over the United States are deepening this understanding and affinity 

for the people of the world. September 11 reminded us of the importance of continuing to build bridges with the nations of the world. International adoption is one 

very effective and lasting way to build these bridges. 

Over this past year, I have also had the privilege of meeting with the Presidents 

of Kazakstan, Romania and Russia and high-ranking government officials from 

Cambodia, Vietnam, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Uganda, and the Ukraine. 
25 

Each time the message is the same. They want to do what they can to make the 

Hague more than just a piece of paper with 59 signatures on it. 

These nations are looking to the United States to lead the way toward a system 

of international adoption and child welfare that is based on best practices. A system 

comprised of meaningful protections for the adoptive parents, the birth parents, and 

perhaps most importantly the children; a system that universally recognizes that a 

government institution is not and cannot be an adequate replacement for a family 

and works toward the shared mission of finding every child in this world a loving 

and nurturing, permanent family. 

Madame Secretary, I hope that my remarks this morning will remind you of the 

power that this issue has in shaping the world’s future and that you will do what 

you can to see that it is given proper recognition within your department. I think 

that the orphans of the world would benefit greatly from your leadership and compassion. 

Another area that would benefit from stronger coordination is in the area of women’s economic and political empowerment. I would like to complement you, Madame 

Secretary, and your Department, for your dedication to improving the lives of 

women worldwide. I note your work in both Afghanistan and Iraq and the investments we have made in programs there to help bring freedom and equality to the 

women there. While the efforts there have been commendable, I would argue that 

more can and should be done. 

Take for instance the micro-enterprise loan program, which disproportionately 

benefits women. It has received $150 million over the last five years. While impressive, in the context of a $32 billion foreign aid budget, I would argue we can afford 

to do more. 

When I have raised these concerns in the past, I have been told ‘‘Senator, but 

since women comprise 50 percent of the population, it is safe to assume that 50 percent of any funding going to the country will be spent on improving lives for these 

women.’’ While I am not convinced this is always the case, particularly in countries 

where the oppression of women has been widespread for decades, if we truly want 

to bring freedom and democracy to these countries then we must actively support 

programs that directly benefit and empower women. 

I, along with other members of this committee, have worked in the past to see 

that a portion of all funding dedicated to the development of emerging democracies, 

be used for this purpose. I am glad to see that this trend has been incorporated into 

other parts of the budget and I hope to see that continue. 

Finally, Madame Secretary, I want to call your attention to an issue that has 

deeply affected me since my return from Uganda nearly a year ago. While there I 

personally witnessed the terror and chaos imposed by Joe Kony and the Lord’s Resistance Army, particularly for the children who have come to be known as the 

night commuters. What these children have had to live through is indescribable and 

should not be allowed to happen in a world such as ours. 

I would suggest that as we look to areas of the world that might benefit from our 

assistance and leadership that we look to Northern Uganda. In carrying out our 

goal of seeking out terrorists wherever they may hide, I urge us to do what we can 

to end the terrorist rein of the LRA. 

Again, Madame Secretary, thank you for being here this morning to share your 

views with us and I look forward to working with you on these and other issues. 

Senator MCCONNELL. Thank you, Senator Landrieu. 

We will now turn to Senator DeWine, followed by Senator Durbin, and Senator Bennett. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE DE WINE

Senator DEWINE. Madam Secretary, good to see you. Good to 

have the country’s foremost Cleveland Browns fan in front of us 

today. 

Secretary RICE. It is true. 

Senator DEWINE. I could not resist it. Good to have you with us. 

I do not want to belabor the point that Senator Leahy made, but 

I am also concerned, I must tell you, about the developmental assistance figure. Again, not to belabor the point, but by my calculation at least, even if you figure in the new transition initiative 

country spending, we are still coming up by my figures about $70 
26 

million short on developmental assistance. So, again, it is a concern 

that I have. 

HAITI

Let me talk about one of the issues that I have talked with you 

many times about, and that is Haiti. The crisis continues in Haiti. 

It is certainly not getting any better. Elections are scheduled this 

year. 

Madam Secretary, I have been a big supporter of CAFTA. Those 

of us who have been around here—for me, I was in the House in 

the 1980’s—have to understand I think the importance of this to 

Central America and how important continuing the development of 

democracy is in Central America. You pointed out what is going on 

in Nicaragua. I was down in Nicaragua a few months ago. I understand the dynamics of what is happening there. I am a big supporter of CAFTA. 

But I must say I find a little inconsistency in the administration 

not supporting a trade initiative in regard to Haiti. I think we really could do two things at once. I have seen enough in regard to 

Haiti to know that we are not going to help Haiti really just by 

money. What we are doing we have to do. We have to do it for humanitarian reasons. We have to do it so we do not have to send 

troops down there again. We have had them down there twice in 

the last decade. They are going to be down there again at some 

point if things do not get better. But really, whether you are a 

Democrat or Republican, I think we all understand that really 

what Haiti needs is jobs. That is the only way this country is going 

to have a chance, the people are going to have a chance. 

I would just ask you again for the administration to look at the 

trade bill that we passed last year in the Senate. It did not pass 

in the House, although there was a pretty good effort made to get 

it passed, but it did not pass. That is really what is needed if we 

are going to help Haiti and if we are going to deal with the foreign 

policy problem that this country has. I would like for you to comment on that, but let me ask a couple of other questions. 

AFRICA

Ethiopia, Eritrea, the stalemated border dispute. I wonder if you 

could tell us what steps you might be thinking about taking or are 

taking to help resolve that border dispute and to deal with the 

starvation and the poverty issue there. 

The Congo. If there has been an under-reported tragedy in the 

last 5 years in the world, it has been the terrible, terrible tragedy 

in the Congo. What can be done or what role do you see the United 

States playing in that part of the world? 

Three questions. 

Secretary RICE. Thank you. Yes, of course. 

Let me start with the Congo. The principal problem in the 

Congo, of course, is to try and get a stable transitional government 

in the Kabila government that can actually begin a political transition toward elections. We have tried to do a couple of things to help 

with that. The forces are provided there by the French and others. 

But we have tried to be very politically active in a trilateral set 

of discussions that we have because one of the problems, as you 
27 

well know, is that outside forces have been destabilizing to the 

DROC. So trying to get the Rwandans, the Ugandans, and others 

to know where their armies are and to have them involved in the 

DROC, to not support the RC Agoma and the militia forces that are 

stirring up trouble in the Congo, it has been our role to really try 

and deal with that problem. We have had very close cooperation 

with the South Africans, with President Mbeke, in trying to keep 

foreign forces out of the Congo. We have had variable success. 

But if we can continue to do that and if we can strengthen the 

ability of the Kabila Government to stay stable for a while—now, 

the big problem, of course, is the demobilization of these militias 

that are operating in the country. Another big problem is to have 

a kind of a national unity picture going into the elections. We have 

trilateral discussions. We have discussions with Kabila. I can tell 

you I spend a good deal of time on the phone, at least every couple 

of months, with making the rounds, Kabila, Kagame, Museveni. We 

have really been very active diplomatically there. 

We are probably going to look at more international engagement 

as we get ready for the elections, but I think on that piece we are 

doing what we can. 

I am glad you drew attention to the Ethiopia/Eritrea situation 

because we are actually quite concerned about the potential for a 

humanitarian problem there concerning food. We have begun to 

discuss with the Ethiopians the prepositioning of some food supplies there to deal with what could potentially be a famine situation. We are not there yet, but the warning signs are there. I have 

had discussions with USAID and with Andrew Natsios about doing 

that. 

We are also trying to intensify our political efforts. Of course, the 

border is a major part of it, but also to try to get the government 

to be responsive to what may be a humanitarian problem that it 

has had trouble seeing. So on this one we are trying to intensify 

our diplomacy ahead of the game because we would like not to get 

into a crisis situation there. Though we do not know for certain 

that there will be, there is certainly something looming. 

As to Haiti, Senator, first of all, I want to just note that I appreciate your leadership on Haiti, the $20 million in ESF for Haiti. 

We, as you know, are trying to rebuild police forces. We are trying 

to do a lot of things. I had extensive discussions with the Brazilians when I was there. They lead, of course, the effort in Haiti. 

We think the Haitians can take better advantage of the Caribbean Basin Initiative than they are currently taking and that there 

is room there for trade improvement. We will continue to look at 

what measures we can use, but it is very much on our radar 

screen. 

Senator DEWINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MCCONNELL. Thank you, Senator DeWine. 

Now we will turn to Senator Durbin, followed by Senator Bennett, and Senator Brownback. 

SUDAN

Senator DURBIN. Madam Secretary, thank you for joining us. I 

have two questions of substance and one of style. 
28 

The first question of substance relates to the Sudan. 38 Senators 

sent a letter to you in March asking that a special envoy be appointed to Sudan to carry on the fine work that John Danforth initiated. We received a reply this week rejecting that notion, suggesting that Deputy Secretary Zoellick would continue in that capacity in some way or another. And the letter said that at an appropriate time, the Ambassador to the Sudan would be named. 

First, I would like to ask this question. The appointment of an 

Ambassador can be seen by many as a reward to the government 

of Khartoum. Is there any reason why we should be rewarding this 

government in light of what is happening in Darfur? 

Second, the day-to-day involvement of a Deputy Secretary is, of 

course, diminished since he has many other responsibilities, and I 

worry whether or not he would have the time or the inclination to 

really devote the kind of time that John Danforth did to this terrible crisis. 

I am also concerned when Mr. Zoellick recently visited the 

Sudan, he was asked about the word ‘‘genocide,’’ and he said, 

quote, he did not want to get into a debate over terminology. This 

is a dramatic departure from the unequivocal statement made by 

Secretary Powell in which he said in September of last year, ‘‘I concluded that genocide has been committed in Darfur and that the 

Government of the Sudan and the janjaweed bear responsibility 

and genocide may still be occurring.’’ 

I just wondered if you would comment. Sadly, it sounds like we 

are back in the same word game that was played by the previous 

administration in Rwanda, and I hope that is not the case. 

CHINA TRADE

The second substantive issue relates to China. We have lost millions of manufacturing jobs in the United States, hundreds in my 

own State, in the last several years because of unfair Chinese trade 

practices, literally their manipulation of currency. Many people believe that when the highest levels of decision-making are made in 

this administration and in previous administrations, that politics 

often trumps trade. 

I can see from statements made by you today and other places 

and answers to questions how critically important China is to us 

on North Korea. Many people that I speak to suspect that we are 

holding our punches when it comes to unfair Chinese trade policy 

because we are so dependent on the Chinese in trying to find some 

peaceful resolution in North Korea, not to mention the fact they 

are the second largest holder of the American national debt, which 

grows by leaps and bounds. So if you could comment on the second 

substantive question as to whether or not the State Department is 

winning the debate over those who argue we should enforce our 

trade agreements with China for the benefit of American businesses and workers. 

The last question is one of style. You said something today I 

have never heard said before, and I hope I quote you accurately. 

It was not in your written statement. You called on us to approve 

CAFTA to fight the forces of populism. You said that two or three 

times, ‘‘the forces of populism.’’ And it stopped me because I had 

never quite heard the term populist used in such a negative and 
29 

pejorative sense. In American history, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew 

Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt were characterized 

at some points in their careers as populists. Today Nelson Mandela 

is viewed as a populist. Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma is viewed as 

a populist. 

Is it the position of the administration that populism is antithetical to the spread of democracy? 

Secretary RICE. Thank you. Let me start with the last question, 

Senator Durbin. I think populism has a particular meaning in the 

Latin American context, and I do not mean populism of a kind that 

was practiced by Andrew Jackson, I assure you, or by Nelson 

Mandela. 

By that I meant the kind that was practiced by Peron in Argentina. This is a kind of demagoguery that talks about the needs of 

the people and the wants of the people, and it is being practiced 

today in some places in Latin America. For instance, I think you 

could say that some of the rhetoric in Venezuela is of that character. 

I do not mean that the United States is unable to work with governments from left of center. Quite the opposite. When I was in 

Brazil, I gave a speech saying that the United States of America 

would work with any democratically elected government that governed by transparency, that fought corruption, that cared for the 

needs of its people, that kept its economy open, that traded freely. 

I cited in particular several governments left of center like Brazil 

and Chile with which we have had that kind of relationship. 

The kind of rhetoric that you do get, though, from some quarters 

in Latin America is not about responsible government. It is not 

about responsible economic policy. It is calling to the people who 

are poor and in need in a clearly anti-democratic way. I think if 

you look at the spectrum in Latin America, you will see that there 

is a growth of that kind of rhetoric in Latin America and we have 

to resist that. 

The reason that I cite CAFTA in this regard is that if you look 

at the Central Americans, you have small countries that in the 

1980’s went through horrific civil wars, that had communist movements that were trying to take over the countries, in some cases 

actually ruled like in Nicaragua. And we have come a long way 

when you look at the Central American presidents that were there 

with the President today who do govern democratically, who do 

have open economies, who are interested in free trade. The comment was to contrast what we see from a particular extreme in 

Latin America with the kind of, I think, totally responsible and 

good governance that we see from governments like Brazil or Chile. 

So that was the meaning in that context. 

Now, in terms of Sudan, we do have a charge there whom we 

have appointed. Deputy Secretary Zoellick is spending a great deal 

of time on Sudan. We all are, Senator. For instance, when I was 

at NATO, I worked to try and get NATO to agree that should the 

African Union ask, NATO would be prepared to give logistical support for the African Union forces when they are generated. I think 

we, hopefully, will get that agreement. So we are spending a good 

deal of time, a great deal of time on Sudan. 
30 

It may be the case that at some point in Darfur there is need 

for an envoy. I think we really believe that right now the strategy 

has to be to work with the AU on a very intensive basis to get 

forces into the country to deal with the humanitarian situation by 

getting monitors into the country and then to contribute to the 

long-term process that might ultimately reconcile the various 

forces. That is the reason what we focus so heavily on the NorthSouth Agreement because it gives the kind of framework in which 

you might be able to look at the Darfur circumstance. 

As to genocide, we believe as a Government that, yes, genocide 

has been committed there. We have, from time to time, said to people let us—because you remember the United Nations did not come 

out with that assessment—what we have said to people is let us 

not quibble about what it is called. Let us just recognize that we 

have a horrific humanitarian situation here and that we need to 

act. I think it is in that context that the deputy’s remarks should 

be taken. 

Finally as to China, Senator, I consider it a part of my job as 

Secretary of State to defend America’s trade as free trade and fair 

trade. I do not think there is a State Department position and a 

trade position here. There is a U.S. position, and American foreign 

policy should be about protecting a trading playing field that is 

level and fair so that America’s workers and farmers can compete. 

I spent a very long time with the Chinese leadership when I was 

there. I had an entire session with the Premier that was entirely 

about economics, entirely about the need of the Chinese to respect 

intellectual property rights, entirely about the need of the Chinese 

to have a flexible market-based exchange rate. I believe it is part 

of our job to think of the Chinese relationship as a whole but, by 

all means, the need—especially given the size of the Chinese economy. I have said publicly that China cannot have it both ways. 

China, if it is going to be as it is, this huge economy, has got to 

be in a rules-based environment and has got to live up to its trade 

obligations. 

Senator MCCONNELL. Thank you, Senator Durbin. 

We will now turn to Senator Bennett, to be followed by Senator 

Brownback and Senator Harkin. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT

Senator BENNETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Rice, I have said in another place but I will say now 

clearly for the record how grateful I am for the trip you took to Europe to repair some relationships with our longtime European allies. I have associations in Europe and the back channel reaction 

for your trip there and your performance there was very positive. 

You hit a home run and should be publicly congratulated for that. 

The chairman here has a one-note that he repeats every time, 

which is Burma. Senator Leahy has one that he repeats almost 

every time, which is land mines. And trying to follow their sterling 

leadership, I have one that I repeat every time, which is microcredit. 
31 

MICROCREDIT

I was pleased to have you make mention of microcredit in your 

response to one of the questions. I worked hard to get designation 

of microcredit funds in the supplemental with respect to the tsunami because I believe one of the best ways we can rebuild the 

economy as a result of the tsunami is through microcredit. I have 

seen firsthand the way it works. I have a piece of embroidery in 

my office, which was sent to me from Morocco by a woman who 

began her business with a $20 loan in microcredit. 

My experience is that the—I will not use that term. That would 

be pejorative—the long-term, permanent cadre in the State Department is, shall we say, a little less enamored of microcredit than I 

am. They do not like funds they do not control, and the idea of putting money out there and making it available to primarily women 

who have the entrepreneurial urge is something that a more structured individual kind of does not like. They like to be able to control the money and how it is handled and monitor it and shepherd 

it in a way that bureaucracies respond to. 

So I would simply sound my one note and ask that you continue 

to see to it that the microcredit activity remains viable and, to the 

extent it is possible, continues to grow. I am not sure I am responsible, but in the time I have been sounding this one note, the 

amount of money from the State Department in microcredit has 

more than doubled, and I would hope it would continue to go in 

that trajectory under your stewardship. 

You can respond in whatever way you would like. 

Secretary RICE. Well, thank you, Senator. I am myself a big fan 

of microcredit. I think that it really does, particularly for women, 

empower them and then they do tend to create jobs for people 

around them. So it is very important. 

We are doing a lot of very interesting things with microcredit in 

USAID. When I was in Mexico, I visited a credit union in Mexico. 

We were not providing direct funds to the credit union. What we 

were doing, though, was providing technical assistance to the creation of credit unions there and out in various more remote parts 

of Mexico so that—— 

Senator BENNETT. My banker friends would not be happy to hear 

that. 

Secretary RICE. But they were really very effective units. I 

watched some people sign for their business loans, and it is very 

exciting. 

So I thank you for what you did on the tsunami. I think we think 

that was a very useful thing to do, and thank you very much for 

that. 

Senator BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MCCONNELL. Senator Brownback. 

Senator LEAHY. Mr. Chairman, if I could just mention I agree 

with Senator Bennett on microenterprise. I have worked with several Secretaries of State on that. Both Senator McConnell and I 

have tried to put money in for it. I think it is a great idea. 

You mentioned the land mines. Ironically enough, the work we 

have done on land mines and the work we have done on microenterprise often complement each other because microenterprise 
32 

loans have been used often in places where people have had everything devastated because of land mines. They are not either/or, by 

any means. I know the Senator was not suggesting that. We should 

work closely together. 

Senator BENNETT. Thank you. I do not know the source of this, 

but I have been told that when money goes to men, they get fatter 

and drunker and nothing else happens in the community, but when 

money goes to women, the birth weight of children increases and 

the health of the community as a whole improves. So let us keep 

the money going to the ladies. 

Senator MCCONNELL. Senator Brownback, to be followed by Senator Harkin. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK

Senator BROWNBACK. I have not seen the empirical data on that. 

Maybe it is accurate. 

Welcome, Secretary. Always a delight to see you and to work 

with you. You have got a great track record. 

MIDDLE EAST ELECTIONS

I would note, in particular, what is taking place in the Middle 

East today which is just a matter of, I think, great encouragement 

to see what is taking place. I was recently in Iraq about a month 

and a half ago, that election having just an electrifying impact on 

the population, spilling over into Lebanon, seeing the Syrians move 

out. It is my hope that this Syrian regime that is currently in place 

starts to get the idea that democracy is a good thing and moving 

that way. Egyptians hopefully holding multiparty elections, although it seems to me there is a bit of retrenchment on that note. 

If there is something different on that, I would like to hear it. 

Iran the chairman has already asked about. I do think and I 

hope we can do more on civil society building, interior and exterior, 

on Iran. We have got some money in this budget the last 2 years 

for that, and I hope we can continue that because that seems to 

me is the biggest terrorist bed still remaining. There is a number 

of terrorist spots, but this is the biggest and the most potent and 

an open ideology that is very threatening to us and to Israel and 

to a number of others. To me, Iran is probably one of the most concerning, if not the most concerning, major geopolitical issues that 

is there. 

DARFUR

Thank you on Darfur for reiterating the genocide determination 

on it. I would urge, as quick as you can, supporting movement of 

African Union troops and mobility. We put $50 million in the supplemental that just passed for African Union troops. I have been 

there. You have been in the region. Deputy Secretary Zoellick, just 

recently there. Every day we lose people. I am absolutely convinced, 20,000–25,000 troops on the ground with mobility, with a 

broad engagement that they can respond and move and chase the 

Government of Sudan or the janjaweed forces, this thing is over. 

We may have lost 400,000 people in the last year and a half there. 
33 

It is awful. Just with all speed that you can move on Darfur, you 

are going to save lives in the process. 

NORTH KOREA HUMAN RIGHTS

I want to take you to North Korea, if I can. We passed the North 

Korean Human Rights Act last year. Your administration has done 

more on North Korea than anybody else the last number of decades. We just ignored it for a long time. But the numbers I have 

seen—about 10 percent of that population in North Korea has died 

over the last 10 years by starvation, gulags. It is horribly repressive. 

I just held a press conference this morning showing two death 

penalties being issued on the border, the trial, the announcement, 

and then the guy shot within 5 minutes. And people all herded out 

just to see it just to try to keep people from going across that border. 

I believe we are not doing enough to pressure China on this who 

does hold the key on this. Now, I do not know the numbers, but 

the numbers I keep hearing are at 100,000-plus North Koreans in 

northern China and they continue to gather them up, repatriate 

them, and then they are thrown in a gulag or killed. 

I would hope you could appoint that special envoy on North Korean human rights. 

I would really ask if you could look at starting to allow North Korean refugees to come into the United States. That authority was 

given to you in that human rights act. It would send a powerful 

message to that region of the world. I have got a couple of sick girls 

to nominate. If you are concerned about the security—I keep hearing from the State Department, well, we cannot check the security 

of the North Korean refugees. I have got two. One is, I think, 12 

and another 13-year-old girl—or 12 and 14. They are sisters. One 

is sick and needs medical assistance. I do not think there is a security issue with either of them. But it is a huge statement because 

they have not been allowed into the United States today. If you 

could look at that. 

OSCE/KYRGYZ/GEORGIA

Then in my hat as the chair of the OSCE, the Helsinki Commission, here just beautiful things taking place in that region. I am 

watching carefully—and I know you are—the Kyrgyz and what 

takes place there. That one, after the Ukraines and the Georgians, 

seems a little bit different taste of an overthrow than what the 

two—nonetheless, holds great promise to really move that country 

forward positively. But I do think we are going to need to invest 

time and money. Small country but significant and would have a 

significant impact. 

Then coming up, I think it is, September—maybe it is November—this fall Azerbaijan is holding elections. I just last week 

talked to the President, Ilham Aliyev, about their elections. They 

need to set up now for clean, fair, good elections. I think they know 

it, but they are so strategic where they sit between Russia and 

Iran. The oil pipeline is through that region. I think we have got 

to keep pushing them that, look, you do not just 2 weeks ahead of 

the election say, okay, we are going to have good, clean, fair elec-
34 

tions and everything happens. It is months in advance, and parties 

are allowed to compete and they are allowed access to the press. 

And if that does not happen and you get something that happens 

here in the region, we cannot really stand by you and say, well, 

okay, I guess it was a fair election. I was conveying that and I hope 

others can as well. 

UGANDA

This is a final comment and this is a whole bunch of them. But 

I was just in northern Uganda in December. Our embassy there 

supports providing mobility, helicopters and trucks, to the Ugandan Government to chase the LRA, a group of bandits, and a million and a half people in refugee camps for 15 years. I think they 

are significantly weakened, and mobility might just be the issue. 

We have worked with the State Department and Defense. They 

have some issues with doing that even though our embassy there 

supports it. If there is a chance that you could look at that, because 

if we can get Joseph Kony and his leadership and now with the 

North-South Agreement, we should be able to reduce their areas 

they can go into in southern Sudan for refuge, you will again free 

another million people to go back to a normal lifestyle that have 

been on the run for 15 years. So it is a tougher call, I will wage, 

but I would ask you if you could look at that issue. 

Any of those you care to respond to or if you want to just take 

them under advisement. 

Secretary RICE. Well, thank you, Senator. I will look into the 

Ugandan issue. I know that there are some questions about it, but 

I will look it into and get back to you on the Uganda LRA. 

We have identified a special envoy for North Korean human 

rights. There should be an announcement of that very soon. We 

still have some details to work out, but I think we should be able 

to do that soon. I think it is a very important issue. We do need 

to shine more of a spotlight on the human rights issues in North 

Korea. We are working with Homeland Security and with others 

about what we might be able to do on North Korean refugees. So 

we should talk more about that. 

I would like very much to thank you for what you have been 

doing on the OSCE because I think the OSCE is really proving its 

worth as an organization. Kyrgyzstan was a very good example. We 

got OSCE mobilized. They sent Mr. Pederly there as an envoy who 

I think sorted out what was an complicated and difficult and not 

at all transparent situation between the various players in 

Kyrgyzstan and gave us an opportunity now to have elections and 

something that may turn out very well. So it is an organization I 

think that demonstrated its worth. 

We are very pleased that after a long, cold period with the Russians, they finally approved the budget for the OSCE. That is good 

news. 

We will continue to press all of these countries, including Azerbaijan, Belarus in 2006, that the world is watching whether elections are free and fair. Now, in some I think we will get less response—like in Belarus. I think in Azerbaijan, however, we have 

a chance to convince the Azerbaijani Government that they have 

a reason to be concerned about this. 
35 

So I thank you, and I think it is an extremely important organization that is doing really good work in that part of the world. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you. 

Senator MCCONNELL. Thank you very much, Senator Brownback. 

Senator Harkin. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM HARKIN

Senator HARKIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, welcome again to the committee. 

DISABILITY PROGRAMS

I just have kind of a follow-up on something we have discussed 

on February 17 when you were here, and that has to do with the 

whole area of disability programs in the State Department and 

what we are doing in Iraq. I asked at that time that you look into 

whether people with disabilities in Iraq are receiving appropriate 

services to help get them included in Iraqi society. 

Today we received a letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs that outlines USAID activities for people with disabilities in Iraq. It is pretty comprehensive. It appears that there 

are things that are being done. I am very grateful for that. 

The one thing I would perhaps direct your attention to or those 

under you, anyway, is the educational services often seem to be 

provided in a segregated fashion. The document talks about providing educational services for children in a ‘‘center for the disabled’’ in Baghdad and then transferring them to another facility 

once they complete their education. 

In another instance, a community action program is working 

with an NGO to establish ‘‘an institute for the disabled’’ rather 

than educating students with disabilities alongside their peers. 

Now, the only thing I would hope is I would hope that you might 

just send a memorandum down the line to these people under you 

and just use the words ‘‘integrated fashion,’’ that the people with 

disabilities ought to be provided this help and support in an integrated setting, not separating them out from the rest of society, but 

to the maximum extent possible, providing that in an integrated 

setting to the maximum extent possible. That is all I ask, that you 

might get them to think about it in that framework. 

Section 579 of the 2005 omnibus bill. Again, I thank the chairman and the ranking member of this subcommittee for supporting 

that section 579. There were five specific requirements listed under 

disability programs. One was to have USAID and the Secretary of 

State to designate a disability advisor or coordinator within the respective agencies. At the hearing on September 17, I asked you if 

those people had been designated. I still do not know if they have 

been designated. If you do not know, could you just have somebody 

tell me whether they have been designated yet? 

Secretary RICE. Yes. 

COORDINATOR FOR DISABILITIES

Senator HARKIN. A coordinator, a certain person to coordinate 

that. 
36 

Also, one other section of the five specific requirements requires 

that the Secretary of State and USAID Administrator seek to ensure the needs of persons with disabilities are addressed in democracy, human rights, and rule of law programs, projects and activities that they support. And while I am not asking you to provide 

me that information now, but if you could provide what affirmative 

steps have you taken to make sure that this occurs, and could you 

give any examples of how persons with disabilities are being included in the democracy, human rights, and rule of law programs, 

projects, and activities? 

Secretary RICE. Senator, do you mean in Iraq specifically or in 

general? 

Senator HARKIN. No. In your own Department. 

Secretary RICE. Oh, in our own Department. Disabled Americans, 

disabled employees of the State Department. Is that what you are 

referring to? I am sorry. I did not understand. 

Senator HARKIN. You have the democracy, human rights, and 

rule of law programs. 

Secretary RICE. Yes. 

Senator HARKIN. And you have projects and activities. 

Secretary RICE. Yes. 

Senator HARKIN. How are persons with disabilities being included in those programs, not just here but as you extend out and 

do those programs in other countries, how are they being included 

in those programs. 

Secretary RICE. I understand. I could actually give you one example that I just saw. I was just in Russia, and we met with civil society groups there. There was both a representative of Special Olympics for Russia and a person who is an advocate for the disabled 

in Russia. And this is a case that I know well because I know that 

for a long time in the old Soviet Union, disability was considered 

something to be hidden. 

Senator HARKIN. That is right. 

Secretary RICE. In fact, after World War II, they swept disabled 

veterans off the streets because it was somehow considered a stain 

on the society to have disabled people. 

I was struck by the fact that these people were there, that they 

actually had disability advocates. They are part of the civil society 

programs we are funding. 

Senator HARKIN. Great. 

Secretary RICE. I was told that President Putin had actually invited, people think for the first time in the history of Russian leadership, disabled people to the Kremlin for a meeting. So that is just 

one small example and I will try to get you some others. But I was 

very touched by that one because I do know the Soviet case very 

well. 

Senator HARKIN. It is a great example. I did not know about it, 

but that is a great example. I just again encourage you to take that 

example and keep promoting it in all the other countries in which 

we are operating, but especially in Iraq because there are a lot of 

young people that have become disabled because of the war and 

other things. If we are going to try to help build a democratic system in Iraq, I would hope that we would think about, again, how 

we include people with disabilities in a more integrated setting 
37 

rather than segregating them out like you just talked about the Soviet Union used to do all the time. 

PUBLIC LAW 480/USAID

Last, Mr. Chairman, if I could, Madam Secretary, a few weeks 

ago Chairman Chambliss and I, chairman and ranking member of 

the Agriculture Committee, wrote a letter to the chairman and 

ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee opposing the 

idea of diverting $300 million from Public Law 480, Title II Food 

for Peace Program to a separate account operated by the USAID, 

Agency for International Development. The idea behind it is good 

because the idea behind it was to allow USAID to be able, in emergency settings like tsunamis, to go out and purchase food locally 

and get it out there right away rather than relying upon shipments 

from this country. That is good. That is fine. 

What is not fine is that they are going to take it out of the account for the existing Public Law 480 to do that. The Public Law 

480 program, for all the years I have been here, now 30, that we 

have looked at, it has been a great program. Some countries, as 

you know, face chronic malnutrition, and have chronic needs for 

continued food aid. I just do not think it is right to cut down on 

that in case there is an emergency somewhere. 

So while I support the idea of restructuring and giving you the 

power to be able to get USAID to have a separate fund to buy food 

locally, both Senator Chambliss and I are opposed to the idea of 

taking it out of the existing Public Law 480 account. So, again, I 

just wanted to bring that to your attention and hope that you 

would ask your boss also to take a look at that and leave the Public 

Law 480 program the way it is. I am sure that you will find all 

the support you need here for the additional $300 million for the 

program that would be set up by USAID. 

Secretary RICE. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator HARKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LEAHY [presiding]. Senator McConnell had to leave to go 

back to the floor. We are trying to figure out whether we are going 

to get a transportation bill through today. He has asked me to 

wrap up and not to cut anybody off. Did the Senator from Kansas 

have anything else? 

Senator BROWNBACK. No. 

Senator LEAHY. I will submit some more questions on Colombia. 

I still have a concern. We all want President Uribe to succeed. We 

want cocaine to stop coming into our country. It would help if we 

did more to stop the demand here at home. We could isolate Colombia. We could do anything we wanted. As long as Americans want 

to buy illegal drugs, there are dozens of places, including our close 

ally Afghanistan that will send it. We have got to clean up our own 

act. But my concern is more about the paramilitaries and what we 

do with the billions of dollars we spend down there and how we 

help ensure that human rights are respected. 

Let me ask you this. The State Department is just one of many 

agencies using an increasing number of private security contractors 

protecting people and cargo overseas. I am not talking about the 

regular State Department security people who are superb. I have 

traveled with them. You do all the time, of course. 
38 

We have DynCorps and Black Water Security, and others, that 

use ex-military personnel as hired guns in Iraq and Afghanistan, 

Colombia, and other countries. Tragically, many of these contractors have been killed in Iraq. But many have also been involved in 

the deaths of others, sometimes innocent people. What I want to 

know—and I really want the answer to this. It may have to be in 

classified form. I want to know what are the rules governing the 

use of lethal force by private security contractors who are paid directly or indirectly by the State Department. That is my first question. 

SECURITY

And what happens when a private security contractor paid by 

the State Department deployed overseas runs over somebody with 

a vehicle, shoots an innocent person, or otherwise causes harm on 

the job or off the job? Who is responsible? Are they or are we? So 

if somebody could get me that. 

Secretary RICE. Absolutely, Senator. 

MARLA RUZICKA WAR VICTIMS FUND

Senator LEAHY. I appreciate your interest in being at the program for Marla Ruzicka this weekend. I understand the reason 

why you cannot. I would just hope, please, emphasize to the people 

in your Department the tremendous work this young woman did in 

Baghdad and Afghanistan. She was killed so tragically about a 

month ago. I think she was a model. We have in the bill that just 

passed, the supplemental, as you know, a provision to name the 

fund after her. 

Secretary RICE. Victim Support, yes. Thank you. 

Senator LEAHY. This is an example of one person, so motivated— 

and you have within the State Department and elsewhere such 

people. We have them outside Government. Let’s support them so 

they can get out there and help people. 

Secretary RICE. Thank you, Senator. I completely agree with 

that. Thank you for acknowledging Ms. Ruzicka. We appreciate 

that very much and want to acknowledge her service. 

If I may just say one thing about Colombia. I just want to assure 

you, Senator, when I was in Colombia, we spent a good deal of time 

on the issue of the paramilitaries, a good deal of time on the issue 

of the human rights issues. President Uribe tells us—and I believe 

him—that he believes that in order to be a really functioning, 

transparent, worthy democratic society, that they have to have 

human rights at the core of what they are doing. He is more than 

willing to answer the questions that we have about human rights. 

Of course, we have a number of them. But I just wanted you to 

know that this was an issue of considerable discussion when I was 

in Colombia. 

Senator LEAHY. Well, and I am sure of it because I have met 

with him several times. We have talked on the phone. We have met 

at the embassy and in my office. I want him to succeed. I want 

whoever is president there to bring peace and democracy. I know 

that he risks his own life and his family’s life. I just want to make 

sure that especially within our hemisphere, that people have respect for the United States and we are upholding our own stand-
39 

ards of human rights. That is why I am glad you have had those 

meetings with him. I will continue to meet with him too. Thank 

you. 

Secretary RICE. Thank you. 

ADDITIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator LEAHY. There will be some additional questions which 

will be submitted for your response in the record. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

Question. What are the rules governing the use of lethal force by private security 

contractors who are paid directly or indirectly by the State Department? 

Answer. State Department-funded security contractors, Protective Security Specialists (PSS), are subject to the Department’s policies governing the use of deadly 

force and Rules of Engagement developed by each Embassy and approved by the 

Chief of Mission. The Department’s policy on the use of deadly force and Embassy 

Baghdad’s Rules of Engagement are attached. 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 

Question. What happens when a private security contractor paid by the State Department, deployed overseas, runs over somebody with a vehicle, shoots an innocent 

person, or otherwise causes harm on the job or off the job? Who’s responsible; are 

they or we? 

Answer. The U.S. Government is not ordinarily responsible for the actions of security contractors. For humanitarian and foreign policy reasons, the State Department 

is developing a program to make payments to Iraqi civilians injured by the non-negligent or negligent actions of private security contractors operating under Embassy 

security contracts. Initially, this program would cover official acts, with possible 

later expansion to cover unofficial acts and other contractors. Tort claim payments 

would be available, as would so-called condolence payments not payable in tort. Embassy Baghdad will implement the program using procedures derived from Department claims procedures and compensation values derived from Iraqi legal norms 

and U.S. Armed Forces practice. 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator LEAHY. Thank you all very much. The subcommittee will 

stand in recess to reconvene at 2:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 26, in 

room SD–138. At that time we will hear testimony from the Hon. 

Andrew S. Natsios, Administrator, United States Agency for International Development. 

[Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., Thursday, May 12, the subcommittee 

was recessed, to reconvene at 2:30 p.m., Thursday, May 26.] 

(69) 

STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED 

PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL 

YEAR 2006 

THURSDAY, MAY 26, 2005 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 2:40 p.m., in room SD–138, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Mitch McConnell (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators McConnell, Bennett, DeWine, Brownback, 

Leahy, Harkin, and Landrieu. 

UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL 

DEVELOPMENT 

STATEMENT OF HON. ANDREW S. NATSIOS, ADMINISTRATOR 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MITCH MC CONNELL

Senator MCCONNELL. The hearing will come to order. 

I am going to put my opening statement in the record. I do not 

think all of you should be penalized for my tardiness. Also, Senator 

Leahy is not here yet. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL

Welcome, Administrator Natsios. Today’s hearing is on the President’s fiscal year 

2006 request for appropriations for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). These programs and activities total in excess of $4 billion. 

As I said during the Secretary of State’s hearing earlier this month, the ‘‘soft’’ side 

of our foreign aid is a critical component in the war on terrorism. Child Survival 

and Health Programs and Development Assistance, if targeted effectively, can frustrate the ability of extremists to further their hateful ideology and to recruit additional foot soldiers from underserved or underrepresented populations. Moreover, 

this assistance clearly demonstrates the generosity and benevolence of the American 

people. 

The ultimate success of our efforts, however, is largely determined by the political 

will and actions of foreign governments to address the needs of their citizens in a 

transparent and accountable manner. Simply put, the lack of freedom and the rule 

of law in developing countries blunts the effectiveness of our foreign aid. From Haiti 

to Cambodia, this maxim unfortunately has been proven true time and time again. 

Let me take a moment to commend President Bush for his leadership, and personal commitment, to the cause of freedom. The President’s support for democracy 

is nothing short of inspirational to the courageous individuals who struggle for liberty, human rights and justice abroad—and to those of us who have long championed their worthy causes from our shores. 

The challenge for USAID—and the State Department—will be to keep pace with 

the President, and to this end, the Agency should consider highlighting the impor-
70 

tance of democracy promotion by making this its own operational goal. USAID will 

need to conduct a stem-to-stern review of the way it supports democracy programs, 

with a greater emphasis on grants to proven democracy-building organizations, closer coordination with the State Department and the National Endowment for Democracy, and better appreciation for the use of technology—such as that utilized by 

Voice for Humanity in Iraq and Afghanistan. USAID should be less concerned with 

the amount it spends on democracy promotion and more focused on what it spends 

its funding on. 

In closing, it would be useful for the Subcommittee to hear your views, Mr. 

Natsios, on the significant increase in the Transition Initiatives account and the inclusion of emergency food assistance in the International Disaster and Famine Assistance account in the fiscal year 2006 budget request. 

Senator Leahy will make an opening statement, followed by Mr. Natsios, and then 

we will proceed to seven-minute rounds of questions and answers. We will keep the 

record open for additional questions. 

Senator MCCONNELL. Administrator Natsios, what I would like 

to do is begin with you. Feel free to put your full statement in the 

record if you would like and then tell us what you have on your 

mind. We will then ask questions. 

SUMMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. ANDREW S. NATSIOS

Mr. NATSIOS. Thank you very much, Senator. I have a longer 

statement for the record, and a very abbreviated statement for my 

public testimony. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is an honor 

for me to be here today to discuss the President’s 2006 budget for 

the United States Agency for International Development. 

Before beginning our presentation, I want to thank the chairman, the ranking member and their staff, and the committee members for the support you have shown to us in USAID to play the 

critical role that we do in our national security. 

We particularly appreciate your tremendous work on the supplemental budget to meet the President’s request levels for Afghanistan, Sudan, and the tsunami-affected region. We are grateful that 

you see our work in these states as important as we do in winning 

the war on terror. 

I will, as I said, submit my full testimony for the record which 

lays out the overall justification for our budget in the 2006 request. 

For these few minutes, I would like to address three issues that 

your staff has raised with us and that we find to be essential to 

the work of USAID. 

First is our work in democracy, second our request to shift funds 

from the Development Assistance account to the Transition Initiative account, and finally the partnership between the MCC and 

USAID. 

First our work in democracy. President Bush and Secretary Rice 

have emphasized the centrality of democracy, freedom, and good 

governance both to our national security and to development in 

general. 

Your staff has also emphasized the central role of democracy and 

international security. We in USAID—both our political appointees 

and our career officers—very, very strongly share your perspective 

on this important aspect of development policy. 

In fact, the principal reason that development fails in developing 

countries is because of the failure of governance. A failure of democracy or a failure of the system to allow people to participate in 
71 

the choice of their own leaders is the principal reason why there 

is political instability that sometimes wrecks years of development 

by causing civil war or insurgencies. 

Countries that are accelerating their development are those 

which embrace democratic governance and in good governance control corruption and through that, their country progresses. 

We in USAID are dedicated to ensuring that our resources carry 

through the vision of the national security strategy of the President, the Secretary of State, and ultimately the American people 

by supporting the development of prosperous democratic partners 

for the United States around the world. 

We have played a central role in that. There are 400 USAID officers who are democracy and governance officers, 200 of which work 

in the field. And our missions, we have created a strike force in the 

Agency, in the bureau in which the Democracy Office is located, to 

act in a very rapid way when we believe that democracy has a 

chance of moving forward. 

In Iraq, USAID played a key role in supporting the Iraqi election 

process as well as helping to build democratic institutions in a 

country that was ruled with an iron fist for generations. 

We helped mobilize thousands of Iraqi election staff, many hundred Iraqi civil society organizations, and we helped Iraq and international organizations to field domestic election observers, deliver 

voter education, implement conflict mitigation programs. 

With USAID support, over 220 core election monitors were 

trained and with additional European union support, we trained as 

many as 12,000 domestic monitors. 

One indicator of election success was the higher than anticipated 

turnout in the election, but most importantly the 275 member Iraqi 

National Assembly with 25 percent female representation was 

elected to govern the country, draft a new constitution and provide 

a national referendum on the constitution. 

Subsequently a constitutional government was put in place. 

Funding for this will be put in place later this year. Funding for 

this total effort was $114.7 million. 

In Afghanistan, we helped Afghanistan move toward the promise 

of democracy, stability, and peace, the staging of the Loya Jerga. 

There are two of them, one that elected Karzai as the interim 

president and then for the interim constitution, only months after 

the fall of the Taliban regime, owing much to the logistical support 

that we provided through USAID. 

We provided $151.2 million including logistical support for the 

Afghan transitional authority to convene the delegates responsible 

for drafting the constitution and then, of course, as I mentioned 

earlier, in the October 2004 presidential elections that elected 

Hamid Karzai as the President. 

We are also deeply involved right now in preparing for the parliamentary elections which are scheduled currently for September 

2005. 

Equally dramatic democratic transitions took place in 2003 in 

Georgia and 2004 in Ukraine. In the decade that preceded the people to power movements in these countries, we supported projects 

to build democratic institutions and civil society, establish the rule 
72 

of law, and create a democratic legislative base and develop an 

independent press. In the Ukraine, for example, the USG provided $18.3 million to 

support the electoral process in the last elections. Partners provided consultations to the drafters of the new election legislation. 

More than 5 million pieces of printed voter education materials 

were distributed to over 200 communities about the election process and public service announcements were broadcast on four TV 

channels and 100 radio stations about the elections. 

There is a proposal in the 2006 budget to transfer about $275 

million in money between the Development Assistance account and 

the Transition Initiative account. To meet the challenges of the 

post 9/11 world, we are building on our experience of democracy 

and governance and we are also adapting its tools to create effective programs in countries that are in transitions. 

Programs in countries facing fragile conditions, whether they are 

economic or political, differ from traditional aid programs. These 

programs will have high impact, visible results, and may have a 

shorter time horizon than traditional programs. 

For example, a cash for work program, a rapid job creation program may be more appropriate in lieu of a long-term job creation 

program in a fragile state to get people, particularly young men, off 

the streets, working right away because they otherwise can be 

drawn into militias that destabilize a new democracy. 

Another example may be using funds to restore electricity in a 

city to prevent chaos. These examples may require reprogramming 

of funds that require a 15-day notification process under usual authorities, but do not under the Transition Initiative account. By the 

time notification passes, the Agency risks missing its window of opportunity in some crises. 

The TI account has also been traditionally free from earmarks. 

The Agency understands the political process in a city into which 

foreign aid assistance operates and has attempted to adjust its expectations over the years accordingly. Yet, we have learned that in 

the case of dealing with fragile states, the flexibility to move funds 

quickly is imperative to helping countries move along. 

We put four countries as a pilot into the TI account not for the 

Office of Transition. It would be the USAID missions in the field 

that would spend the money, but they would have more flexibility 

in the spending of this money. These four countries are Haiti, 

Sudan, Ethiopia, and Afghanistan. 

They are not the four fragile states in the world. There are several dozen fragile states. In fact, the British Government aid agency estimates that—we have a common definition that are used 

among donor governments—there are about 50 to 60 fragile states 

in the world. 

We are doing this on a pilot basis to see how it would function 

in four countries that are critically important to the United States 

for a variety of different reasons. 

Finally, I wanted to comment on our relationship with the Millennium Challenge Corporation. I sit on the board thanks to the 

Congress. I do appreciate the Congress putting me on the Board of 

Directors. And we are working with them on a daily basis on the 

compact countries. 
73 

But the board voted and the Congress, I believe, put in the legislation that USAID would have authority over threshold programs, 

which are countries that did not quite make the cut because they 

failed on a couple of indicators and we wanted to accelerate their 

movement into MCC status. 

So there is, I think, a provision in the statute that allows up to 

10 percent of the appropriation each year to be used for threshold 

countries. 

We are working with the MCC very closely on these proposals. 

We have a special unit in the central office that coordinates this 

with MCC Corporation. 

Our staff has visited in partnership with the MCC all of the 

threshold countries. We evaluated the concept papers and we have 

done an initial review. 

The MCC Board of Directors will approve the final budgets and 

they have the authority to approve the plans for each country’s 

threshold program. The MCC then funds them and we will manage 

the money through the USAID mission processes in the field missions. 

Almost all of the threshold countries, I think with one exception, 

have USAID missions in them to begin with. We do not expect that 

the addition of MCC funding for threshold activities will result in 

a loss or reduction of standard USAID funding. In most cases, 

threshold funded activities will be complementary to existing 

USAID programs. 

We believe that the complementarity between USAID and 

threshold programs will accelerate the impact of reform and investment which will help countries improve their prospects of eventually qualifying for MCC. 

The 2006 budget request for USAID supports our foreign policy 

goals of the U.S. Government and our national security interests. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

I would like to acknowledge once again the support of this committee in helping USAID fulfill the enormous responsibilities it 

faces today in supporting its efforts to promote peace throughout 

the world by spreading democracy, economic opportunity, and prosperity. 

I welcome your questions. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ANDREW S. NATSIOS

Chairman McConnell, Members of the subcommittee, It is an honor to be here 

today to discuss the President’s budget for the U.S. Agency for International Development for fiscal year 2006. Before beginning our presentation, I want to thank the 

Chairman and the other members of the committee and their staff for the support 

you have shown for our programs that allow USAID to play the critical role it does 

in our national security. 

A NEW ERA OF DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE

The President’s National Security Strategy (2002) was written at a year’s distance 

from 9/11 and is the first comprehensive response to the events of that day. Our 

challenges in the new era require new ways of thinking and operating, the document asserts. To meet them, the whole spectrum of our foreign policy establishment 

had to be engaged and many of its programs redesigned. This included ‘‘defense’’, 

‘‘diplomacy,’’ and ‘‘development,’’ the success of whose mission is now viewed as a 
74 

matter of great urgency and importance. Indeed, ‘‘development’’ today has received 

a level of commitment not seen since the Kennedy or Truman Administration. 

Part of the intention of the National Security Strategy was to disabuse anyone 

of the opinion that ‘‘development’’ was something peripheral to our own nation’s well 

being. The promotion of freedom and development around the world is, of course, 

an expression of the highest ideals of this country. But it is more than that. post9/11, the success of the cause of freedom and development is absolutely vital to making this a safer and a better world. As the President stated in his Second Inaugural, 

the present moment sees our highest ideals and our national security concerns conjoined. The task before us is great, and we are energized both by harsh necessity 

and our noblest aspirations. 

In that speech the President also stated, ‘‘All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know, the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your 

oppressors. When you stand for liberty, we will stand with you. Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know, America sees you for who you are: 

the future leaders of your free country.’’ Supporting democratic transitions, and 

building democracy worldwide is one of the United States’ most important goals, 

and one which USAID has helped support. 

USAID’s work in the democracy field has contributed substantively to the transitions to democratic governance throughout South and Central America in the 1980s 

and 1990s and in Eastern Europe and the Baltic states. As an agency, USAID has 

played central roles to the democratic transitions as well in countries as diverse as 

Mongolia, Indonesia, South Africa, Georgia, and Mozambique. Wherever they are 

USAID democracy programs are distinctive for their analytic grounding, their comprehensiveness, their multi-year planning cycle, and their impact. USAID programs 

not only promote democracy, but they build democracy for the long-term. 

To help meet the challenges of the post-9/11 world, USAID is building on its experience in democracy and good governance. It is adapting its tools and knowledge to 

forge effective assistance programs in fragile states. It is looking carefully at the 

‘‘hard nuts’’—the uthoritarian and semi-authoritarian states—while not forgetting 

that democratic governance is still at risk in many of our more stable new democracies. USAID’s democracy program will be implemented by a democracy corps of 

over 400 who manage hundreds of millions of dollars in democracy programs around 

the world. 

When I came back to USAID as Administrator, I was called to lead an Agency 

that came into being a half century earlier in a very different world. I was assuming 

office at a moment when the nation was trying to redefine its foreign policy in light 

of the realities of globalization and the end of the Cold War. The Agency was subjected to doubts about its relevancy in the new era. It was dislocated by cuts in both 

budget and manpower. All of this took its toll on morale within the Agency. 

Early on, I called for an Agency-wide assessment to sort out our core missions and 

to better align them with the foreign policy needs of the new era. This exercise was 

undertaken to refocus the Agency, in order to better define and prioritize its tasks. 

The result was the Foreign Aid in the National Interest (2002) Report and the Agency’s White Paper (2004), which identified five core missions of the Agency. 

It has been one of my chief priorities as Administrator at USAID to strengthen 

the Agency’s response to the key objectives the White Paper identified. These tasks 

have been made more urgent by the events of that day and more central to this 

nation’s foreign policy. The fiscal year 2006 budget reflects this commitment. 

In this budget we propose tying Development Assistance (DA) to countries’ own 

development efforts that demonstrate that they are striving for the conditions that 

the President set forth to become eligible for assistance through the Millennium 

Challenge Account. A performance-based approach will be adopted to allocate a 

share of the DA account. This will compare need and performance across regions, 

based on standard criteria. 

To meet the unprecedented challenges of the post-9/11 era, USAID is aggressively 

pursuing management reform through a number of initiatives. By strengthening our 

workforce, improving program accountability, and increasing the security of our 

operatives, we are building the foundation of sound management and organizational 

excellence. We are also reaching out to new, non-traditional partners, often using 

the Global Development Alliance model of public-private partnerships. 

To make progress on these goals, USAID is requesting $4.1 billion for its fiscal 

year 2006 programs. Additionally, we anticipate working with the Departments of 

State and Agriculture on joint programs that total $5 billion in ESF, FSA, SEED, 

ACI and Public Law 480 accounts. We will also manage a portion of the nearly $2 

billion requested for the Global HIV/AIDS Initiative by the Department of State’s 

Global AIDS Coordinator and a portion of the $3 billion for the Millennium Challenge Corporation. USAID is requesting $802.4 million in Operating Expenses (OE), 
75 

the Capital Investment Fund, the Development Credit administrative funds and the 

Office of the Inspector General to fund the administrative costs of managing the 

$8.3 billion in program funds. 

MAJOR INITIATIVES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

This year’s request introduces two strategic reforms to increase the effectiveness 

of bilateral foreign aid and advance the security interests of the country. The first 

is a shift of $300 million from the Public Law 480, Title II food account to the International Disaster and Famine Assistance (IFDA) account for purchase of food locally. The second is a shift of $275 million from the Development Assistance account 

to the Transition Initiatives account. I would like to take this opportunity to explain 

why these reforms make better use of taxpayer dollars than our current approach. 

FUNDS TRANSFER FOR LOCAL PURCHASE OF FOOD

As food emergencies have increased in complexity and magnitude, USAID needs 

to purchase some food locally in order to save lives. Given the widely differing conditions in the countries where we provide food aid, USAID needs more flexibility and 

access to cash in order to respond quickly and appropriately. When we need to save 

lives quickly, there is not always enough time to ship commodities from the United 

States. Therefore, purchasing food locally will enable us to make a significant impact when food is urgently needed. Under such conditions, food would be purchased 

in the country facing the emergency or in a nearby developing country. Funds for 

local purchases will not be used to procure commodities from developed nations. For fiscal year 2006, $300 million that was previously requested under Public Law 

480 Title II is being requested under IDFA for emergency food aid needs. Title II 

funds may only be used to purchase U.S. commodities, whereas IDFA funds can 

purchase local commodities. Food is sometimes available close to the area of need 

and could fill a critical gap before commodities arrive from the United States up to 

several months later. With potentially lower purchase and transportation costs, the 

United States could afford to buy more food and reach more of the vulnerable population. In some cases, carefully targeted local purchases could also help stabilize 

local food prices, strengthen markets and local agrarian economies, providing a double benefit: improved humanitarian assistance and greater development impact. 

There are approximately 800 million people in the developing world who go to bed 

hungry each night. Of these, 25,000 die from hunger-related causes each day. By 

using $300 million in IDFA versus Title II, USAID estimates that approximately 

50,000 lives could be saved in acute emergencies by supplying locally produced food 

more quickly and at lower delivery cost. This number is based on calculations of the 

potential number of beneficiaries that could be reached using $300 million in cash 

for local purchase vs. U.S. commodity purchase, while keeping the bulk of the Title 

II program intact at $885 million. 

The benefits of the Administration’s proposal for added flexibility in meeting 

emergency food needs far outweigh the potential costs, and we strongly urge congressional support. The injection of cash into a local economy can also help address 

malnutrition in a more sustainable way by stimulating local agricultural production 

and the rural economy. Local purchases could also help generate local trading and 

marketing links including financing riangular, regional transactions—buying in a 

surplus producing country to send to the food emergency in the near-by country. 

The ability to purchase food in local or regional markets would give us another important option for meeting critical needs. 

FUNDS TRANSFER: DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO TRANSITION INITIATIVES

We have requested a shift from the Development Assistance (DA) account to the 

Transition Initiatives (TI) account for fiscal year 2006. The TI account differs from 

the DA account in the following ways, essential to providing a more rapid response 

to conditions on the ground: the option to use notwithstanding authority, funding 

that is no-year, and a shorter Congressional reporting requirement, i.e., a five day 

report rather than a 15 day notification. Countries that are confronting crisis or are 

in transition from crisis to transformational development require rapid response to 

their unique situation to avert further problems. We are requesting $275 million for 

programs in these ‘‘fragile states.’’ 

Our programs on the ground in fragile states look different than traditional aid 

programs. The programs focus on activities that have high-impact, visible results 

and may have a shorter time horizon than traditional development assistance programs. For example, we might use a cash-for-work, rapid job creation program instead of a long-term job creation program in fragile states to get people off the 

streets and working right away. Or we may need to invest funds immediately into 
76 

restoring electricity in a city to prevent chaos. These examples may require a reprogramming of funds that would require a 15-day notification process under DA 

account authorities. By the time the notification time passes, the Agency risks missing its window of opportunity to prevent the country from falling deeper into crisis. 

The TI account has also been traditionally free from Congressional earmarks. I 

bring this up in the spirit of transparency. The Agency understands the political reality under which foreign assistance operates and has attempted to adjust its expectations over the years accordingly. In the case of dealing with fragile states, we feel 

that the flexibility to provide country programs as the situation on the ground requires is imperative to laying the foundation for long-term recovery and helping the 

country move from crisis towards economic and political stability. We have learned 

since 9/11 that weak states tend to be the vector for destabilizing forces that can 

have traumatic global ramifications. We hope that by freeing funding for fragile 

states from Congressional earmarks and allowing that funding to be adjusted more 

rapidly through changes in programs on the ground, USAID will be better able to 

do its part in applying its resources to the global war on terror. 

Both the Public Law 480 to IDFA and DA to TI fund shifts represent a step toward the Agency’s vision of more clearly aligning its operational goals, resources 

and results with the development context in which it operates. With the help of 

Congress, we aim to make better use of taxpayer dollars through innovative use of 

the authorities we have in our present account structures. We will evaluate the effectiveness of this approach in the coming year and look forward to sharing the results of these changes with you. 

PROGRAM PRIORITIES: CORE MISSIONS OF USAID

The five core missions of the Agency as outlined in the White Paper and correlative priorities within these programming initiatives follow: 

—Promote Transformational Development through far-reaching, fundamental 

changes conducive to democratic governance and economic growth. The Agency 

also seeks to build human capacity by supporting essential human services in 

the fields of health and education. Such endeavors are key to helping countries 

sustain economic and social progress without continued dependence on foreign 

aid. 

USAID’s priorities for the use of Development Assistance include promoting 

human rights and democracy as well as stimulating the economic growth that can 

move countries into the global trading system. We have allocated assistance on a 

priority basis to needy countries that are manifesting strong commitment to reform 

and making good development progress. 

The fiscal year 2006 request reflects a substantial increase of support for Africa 

when compared to a fiscal year 2001 baseline. Particular emphasis is placed on expanding access to quality basic education, growth in agricultural productivity, and 

increasing trade capacity. USAID will help the countries in the U.S.-Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) with the financial and economic reforms that 

will allow them to take full advantage of trade liberalization. Funding for South 

Asia reflects the end of the relief phase for tsunami victims and the move to the 

recovery and reconstruction of this region. Worldwide, we will continue to work 

closely with the Millennium Challenge Corporation on the MCA ‘‘Threshold Program’’—an MCA program currently administered by USAID that supports countries 

the MCC has determined to be on the threshold of MCA eligibility. 

—Strengthen fragile states to improve security, enhance stability, and advance reform and to build institutional capacity and modernize infrastructure. 

USAID is vigorously pursuing policies that aim at peace and stability in Africa— 

with a particular focus on the Sudan. We will continue the effort begun in 2004 as 

a Group of Eight (G8) initiative to end famine and increase agricultural productivity 

and rural development in Ethiopia, the most populous country in the region, and 

one of the most famine-prone countries in the world. In Latin America, USAID is 

laying the foundations for stability in Haiti through various economic, social, environmental, and political initiatives. In the Near East, USAID will continue its support of Afghanistan and its encouraging progress toward democracy and economic 

growth after suffering from generations of war, occupation, and political fanaticism. 

Some of our efforts are listed in the box below. 

TEN MAJOR ACHIEVEMENTS—USAID IN AFGHANISTAN

1. Coverage of health services exceeds some 4.8 million people. In USAID-sponsored provinces, 63 percent of the population has access to health services. Over 

2,000 Community Health Workers have been trained and are active in health facili-
77 

ties. 4.26 million children have been vaccinated against preventable childhood illnesses. 

2. Civic education, political party training and observer support provided in runup to recent elections. 1.3 million Afghans were reached through voter education activities; registered 41 percent of all women; monitored over 1,673 polling centers— 

a third of all centers—on Election Day; supported 10,000 observers. 

3. $101.7 million was collected through Customs Operations in 2004. 

4. Over 320 kilometers of canals de-silted and 233 irrigation structures repaired, 

improving irrigation for 310,000 hectares of farmland. 

5. Primary education provided to nearly 170,000 over-aged students, over half of 

them girls. Some 6,778 teachers have been trained to lead accelerated learning 

classes that allow students to complete two grades per year. 

6. To date, 42 million textbooks have been provided. 27 million of the textbooks 

are in both Dari and Pashto. The textbooks are for Grades 1 through 12 in all secular subjects. 

7. Radio-based teacher training (RTT) reaches 95 percent of the country in daily 

broadcasts in Dari and Pashto, reaching approximately 54,000 teachers. Of these, 

9,582 teachers—35 percent women—have enrolled in the RTT course. 

8. National Women’s Dormitory in Kabul rehabilitated. Enables over 1,000 girls 

from rural areas to attend the medical school, the Afghan Education University, the 

Polytechnic Institute and Kabul University. 

9. Thirty-two independent FM radio stations, including three Arman FM commercial stations, have been established. 

10. The USAID-sponsored sections of the Kabul-Kandahar Highway are complete 

and operational, with 389 km of roadway paved, 7 bridges totally reconstructed and 

39 bridges repaired. 

—Support geo-political interests through development work in countries of high 

strategic importance. 

USAID’s implementation of Economic Support Fund (ESF) resources for U.S. foreign policy goals places special emphasis on Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Sudan, 

as well as other front-line states in the War on Terror in the Asia, Near East and 

Africa regions. The Agency’s Iraq programs will be funded from ESF and other appropriations. USAID will also target resources to the Muslim World Initiative to 

support countries’ own efforts at social transformation. Some of our achievements 

in Iraq are listed in the box below. 

TEN MAJOR ACHIEVEMENTS—USAID IN IRAQ

1. Prevented humanitarian emergency—delivered 575,000 metric tons of wheat, 

reforming public distribution system. 

2. Created local and city governments in more than 600 communities. 

3. Restarted schools—rehabilitated 2,500 schools; provided textbooks to 8.7 million 

students, supplies to 3.3 million; trained 33,000 teachers. 

4. Vaccinated 3 million children under 5 and over 700,000 pregnant mothers. Rehabilitated more than 60 primary health care clinics. 

5. Providing safe water—expanding Baghdad water purification plant and rehabilitating 27 water and sewage plants. 

6. Re-opened deep water port—dredged Umm Qasr, repaired equipment. Today it 

handles 140,000 tons of cargo a month. 

7. Restoring electric service—repaired eight major power plants with CPA, adding 

2,100 megawatts by summer 2004. 

8. Helped CPA launch new currency and re-establish Central Bank. 

9. Reviving the Marshlands—reflooding revives ancient way of life. Established 

date palm nurseries and crop demonstrations, restocking native fishes (4–5 million 

fingerlings) and developed strategic plan of integrated marshland management. 

10. Establishing Good Governance—budgeting, accounting systems add transparency, accountability to ministries. 

—Provide humanitarian relief to meet immediate human needs in countries afflicted by natural disaster, violent conflict, political crisis, or persistent dire poverty. 

As demonstrated by response to the recent tsunami disaster, Americans respond 

to humanitarian emergencies immediately, spontaneously, and generously. We do 

not calculate what are deeply felt moral imperatives. These commitments are longstanding. They have not changed in the course of American history nor will they 

be shortchanged today. What has changed is the historic context in which we act. 

The Administration’s innovative proposal to use a portion of food aid funds to purchase food locally, outlined previously, provides the flexibility that will help our food 

programs save more lives. 
78 

—Address global issues and special concerns where progress depends on collective 

effort and cooperation among countries. These include combating HIV/AIDS and 

other infectious diseases, forging international trade agreements, and combating 

criminal activities such as money laundering and trafficking in persons and 

narcotics. 

The Agency will also pursue its on-going commitments such as education initiatives in Africa and Latin America, the Trade for African Development and Enterprise initiative, Global Climate Change, Illegal Logging, the Initiative to End Hunger in Africa, and Water for the Poor. These initiatives support mainstream USAID 

goals and work in complementary ways with its programming in states undergoing 

transformational development, as well as our strategies in fragile and strategic 

states. These are implemented in a variety of ways, including training and technical 

assistance, contributions to global funds, bilateral assistance, policy analysis, and direct delivery of services. The initiatives are listed in the box below. 

PRESIDENTIAL INITIATIVES

African Education Initiative 

Anti-Trafficking in Persons 

Centers for Excellence in Teacher Trianing 

Digital Freedom Initiative 

Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief 

Global Climate Change Initiative 

Initiative Against Illegal Logging 

Volunteers for Prosperity 

ADMINISTRATION INITIATIVES

Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiative 

Initiative to End Hunger in Africa 

Middle East Partnership Initiative 

Trade Capacity Building 

Trade for African Development and Enterprise 

Water for the Poor Initiatives 

Combating HIV/AIDS.—The HIV/AIDS pandemic is more than a health emergency. It is a social and economic crisis that is threatening to erase decades of development progress. The pandemic has tended to hit in the most productive age groups 

and in developing counties that are least able to respond. Under the leadership of 

the State Department’s Global AIDS Coordinator, USAID will continue working to 

prevent HIV transmission through a balanced ‘‘ABC’’ approach to behavior change 

that stresses Abstinence, Be faithful, and the use of Condoms. The President’s 

Emergency Plan has recognized that to implement an effective ‘‘ABC’’ prevention 

strategy, our approach must be tailored to the culture and circumstances of the 

place we are working. In addition to prevention, USAID will expand access to antiretroviral treatment, reduce mother-to-child transmission, increase the number of 

individuals reached by community and home-based care, and providing essential 

services to children impacted by HIV/AIDS. 

MANAGEMENT REFORMS AND INITIATIVES

To meet the complex development challenges in the age of terrorism, USAID 

needs modern business systems; organizational discipline; and the right number of 

qualified, well-trained people to manage its programs. It must also draw upon the 

talents of a whole range of partners, both traditional and non-traditional. 

USAID’s fiscal year 2006 management priorities are to strengthen and right-size 

the workforce, improve program accountability, and increase security. 

Staffing.—USAID’s capabilities have been weakened by a direct-hire workforce 

that was drastically downsized during the 1990s and a large workforce contingent 

reaching retirement age. The Agency needs to increase flexibility and develop a 

surge capacity to respond to critical new demands if existent programs elsewhere 

are not to be adversely affected. To address the critical human resources needs, 

USAID has made the Development Readiness Initiative (DRI), which builds on the 

State Department’s Diplomatic Readiness Initiative, a piority. This is the third year 

of DRI implementation, the goal of which is to strengthen the USAID workforce and 

rebuild the Agency’s diplomatic, managerial, and development efforts. The fiscal 

year 2006 funding request will help USAID meet OPM’s mandate to get the ‘‘right 

people in the right jobs with the right skills at the right time’’ by increasing its direct-hire workforce. 

In addition to increasing overall numbers, DRI will strengthen the Agency’s capacity to respond to crises and emerging priorities, cover staffing gaps, fill critical 
79 

vacancies, and provide appropriate training. DRI will maintain the Agency’s quality 

and flexibility of human resources and ensure that staff maximizes the professional 

skills needed to grow with job requirements. Our commitment to DRI will make the 

Agency more agile and better able to respond to changing foreign policy concerns. 

To supplement the Agency’s DRI, the fiscal year 2005 Foreign Operations legislation provided USAID with a Non-Career Foreign Service Officer hiring authority. 

This authority allows USAID to use program funds to hire up to 175 individuals, 

with a requirement to proportionately decrease non-USDH staff. With this authority, the Agency will increase its USDH workforce by up to 350 by fiscal year 2006 

while realizing savings to its program accounts as a result of a decrease in the overhead costs it pays contractors and USG agencies for the services of USAID non-direct hire employees. 

USAID is currently undertaking a detailed workforce analysis that will identify 

the critical skill gaps that the Agency must address. USAID will use both the DRI 

and the Non-Career Foreign Service Officer authority to address these critical gaps, 

and to begin to homogenize its workforce by reducing the large number of less efficient and effective hiring mechanisms it currently uses. 

DCHA Bureau Restructuring.—To better integrate work on crisis, transition, and 

recovery, the Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA) 

is undergoing reorganization and restructuring. The DCHA bureau will represent 

the Agency and assume responsibility for interfacing with other USG and Agencies—particularly the Departments of State and Defense. It will represent the Agency in its dealings with the new State Department Coordinator for Reconstruction 

and Stabilization (S/CRS), which will lead the USG response to national security 

emergencies and crises and will work closely with relevant USAID bureaus to more 

effectively lead the Agency’s response to such events. USAID is also taking steps 

to develop a more robust crisis response capability. This includes recruiting, training and deploying a new cadre of Crisis, Stabilization and Governance Officers. 

Partnerships.—USAID is actively engaged in identifying and forging agreements 

with non-traditional partners, including faith-based organizations. We are proud of 

our initiatives in this regard. 

The Global Development Alliance (GDA) is the centerpiece of our public-private 

alliances which brings significant new resources, ideas, technologies, and partners 

together to address development problems in the countries where we are represented. Through fiscal year 2004, USAID funded over 290 public-private alliances 

that used $1 billion in USAID resources to leverage over $3 billion in alliance partner contributions. 

A new obligating instrument—the collaborative agreement—was created by 

USAID and became operational in fiscal year 2005. This provides an alternative to 

traditional grants and contracts for our non-traditional partners. In support of the 

U.S. global health and prosperity agenda, USAID has recruited highly skilled American professionals to international voluntary service from nearly 200 U.S. non-profit 

organizations and companies. Three-quarters of these entities are new to USAID. 

Of these, 30 are counted among the GDA figures noted above. About 20 of the entities are faith-based organizations. 

Branding.—The USAID ‘‘branding’’ campaign is designed to ensure that the 

American people are recognized for the billions of dollars spent on foreign assistance. A new standard ‘‘identity’’ clearly communicates that our aid is from the 

American people, which will be translated in each country into local languages. The 

‘‘brand’’ will be used consistently on everything from publications to project plaques, 

food bags to folders, business cards to banners. 

Business Transformation.—To address significant management challenges and improve our accountability to the American taxpayers, the Agency will continue to 

modernize its business systems and support joint State-USAID goals for information 

technology management. Joint procurement and financial management systems will 

serve both organizations’ needs and improve program accountability as will our efforts to better integrate budgeting and performance information. 

TEN MAJOR ACHIEVEMENTS—BUSINESS TRANSFORMATION FISCAL YEAR 2001–2004

1. Received two consecutive annual clean audit opinions on Agency financial statements that demonstrate transparent and accountable financial practices. 

2. Implemented an annual Agency-wide survey to assess quality of management 

services and identify opportunities for improvement, achieving over 25 percent increase in employee satisfaction over fours years. 

3. Launched comprehensive Human Capital Strategy and Development Readiness 

Initiative to identify and close critical skill gaps, revitalize the workforce and enhance Agency performance. 
80 

4. Deploying a new financial management system and new procurement software 

overseas to enhance decision-making and enable fast and accountable transactions. 

5. Allocated additional funds to countries with the most need and the highest commitment through strategic budgeting. Re-allocated $30 million to higher performing, 

higher need programs after an internal country and program performance assessment. 

6. Enhancing knowledge management systems and methods to capture and share 

development expertise and new ideas. There are 130,000 documents in our institutional memory bank. 

7. Expanded USAID employee training tools enabling Agency employees to complete nearly 2,000 Web-based courses to enhance job performance. Trained nearly 

1,000 employees on Executive and Senior Leadership to enhance career development 

opportunities. 

8. Better aligning staff with foreign policy priorities and program spending levels. 

9. Reduced the average hiring cycle time from closure of job announcement to job 

offer below the OPM standard of 45 days. In addition, the process is more predictable and systematic. 

10. Published a regulation to allow faith-based organizations to compete on an 

equal footing with other organizations for USAID funds. 

Security.—USAID continues its commitment to protect USAID employees and facilities against global terrorism and the national security information we process 

against espionage. The Agency will increase physical security measures, such as 

building upgrades, emergency communications systems, and armored vehicles. Personnel security, such as background investigations and security clearances, will be 

upgraded as will information security. 

CONCLUSION

The fiscal year 2006 budget request for the new USAID supports U.S. foreign policy goals and national security interests. The request responds to the President’s 

priorities, including support for the Global War on Terrorism, and helping Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan toward stability and security. It sets priorities that use aid 

effectively to promote real transformation in developing countries committed to reform. It also helps states that are more vulnerable or crisis-prone to advance stability, security and reform as well as develop essential institutions and infrastructure. The assistance supports individual foreign policy objectives in geo-strategically 

important states, continues USAID’s global reach to offer humanitarian and disaster 

relief to those in need, and addresses the intrenched poverty and the global ills and 

scourges that afflict humanity. 

I would like to acknowledge the support of this Committee in helping USAID fulfill the enormous responsibilities it faces today and supporting its efforts to promote 

peace throughout the world by spreading democracy, opportunity, and prosperity. 

Senator MCCONNELL. Thank you, Mr. Natsios. 

The way we will proceed is that I will ask questions first, followed by Senator Leahy and then in order of arrival: Senator 

DeWine, Senator Landrieu, Senator Harkin, and then Senator 

Brownback. 

With Mahmoud Abbas in town—some of us met with him yesterday and I know he was with the President today—I thought we 

would start off with a few questions regarding West Bank and 

Gaza. 

I notice that the administration has announced it would provide 

$50 million directly to the Palestinian authority. I, by the way, support that decision. 

How do you anticipate those funds will be used? 

Mr. NATSIOS. Senator, I have not been briefed on the President’s 

meeting yet. I understand the President has made a press statement and I understand there is talk of a $50 million program for 

housing. 

But we have not gotten formal communications because the 

meeting literally took place 1 hour or 2 ago and I am waiting formal communications. 
81 

The President has the authority under statute, as you know, to 

waive the prohibition of money going through the Palestinian Authority. We follow his lead and the Secretary of State’s lead. Whatever they tell us to do, we will do. 

This is probably the most closely managed because it is one of 

the most sensitive programs in the world politically in the United 

States and in Israel and the PA, it is a very sensitive program. And 

we are very much aware of the concern of the Congress in terms 

of who our partner organizations are and how we manage that. 

We have a review process where the entire country team of the 

U.S. Embassy reviews what our plans are, how we spend our 

money in a way that is not done in most embassies because of the 

sensitivity. We are aware of the statutes that have been passed 

and the laws as to who we can deal with, who we cannot deal with. 

We are complying with those laws. 

We have one very important factor which I would like to assure 

you is very important to compliance and that is the Inspector General has an office in the mission. Usually they have regional offices. 

But they actually have an office in the mission and they do concurrent audits. 

Concurrent audits means when you are spending the money, 

they get audited, not after it is all spent. 

I have a meeting once a week privately with the IG, who is a 

separate line of information about what is happening. And if he 

knows something is going wrong, he tells me privately and I can 

fix it if the information system within the agency does not inform 

me. So we have an extra check on what is happening. 

Senator MCCONNELL. Given travel restrictions to Gaza, how do 

your people operate in that area? 

Mr. NATSIOS. We meet on a regular basis with our partner organizations in the embassy, but now it is much more restricted than 

we would find in other places. But that allows us to go through the 

vouchers of the organizations and meet with them regularly in Tel 

Aviv to see what they are doing. We do make trips to the field, but, 

again, not as many or not as much as many of us would like given 

the security conditions that we face. 

We hope as the situation stabilizes, and things are calmer certainly than they were 2 years ago or 1 year ago, it will increase 

the chances that our staff can get out because we are under the 

direction of the diplomatic security, as you may know. We do not 

have our own security apparatus to tell us when to travel. We follow the State Department’s instructions. 

Senator MCCONNELL. Certainly given the outcome of the local 

elections, it is not in dispute that Hamas has a lot of influence in 

that area. 

What safeguards do you have to ensure that the NGOs who are 

operating are not either directly or indirectly supporting Hamas activities? 

Mr. NATSIOS. First, it is clear that we cannot give any money to 

Hamas or Hamas organizations and the statute is clear on that. 

We do comply with that. 

What we do before we develop a partnership with an organization, whether it be a traditional AID partner or an international 

NGO, an international agency or a new partner, a local NGO, for 
82 

example, a women’s group, something like that, we do a thorough 

vetting not just of the organization but also of the people who work 

for the organization. And that gives us some protection in terms of 

who we are dealing with. So there is a vetting process that we go 

through on an individual basis. 

Senator MCCONNELL. I want to shift to Iraq for the balance of 

my round. How would you describe the pace of progress on reconstruction in Iraq? 

I would like for you, in answering the question, to cover how 

much of an issue in getting the work done is the security problem 

in the Sunni triangle. 

Mr. NATSIOS. Certainly the security situation, Mr. Chairman, is 

difficult in the central part of Iraq. But in the Shia south and in 

the Kurdish north, I have traveled myself. I think it was in December I was in Iraq. And I traveled without the kinds of protections 

I had to have when I was in Baghdad, in the greater Baghdad 

area. 

So there are large parts of the country that are relatively free of 

violence where we are able to do our work without incident. 

Senator MCCONNELL. Therefore, are you concentrating in those 

areas? 

Mr. NATSIOS. No. We actually have very extensive programs in 

the Sunni areas, but there are security restrictions. 

There are probably 90,000 Iraqis now working on USAID grants 

or contracts. And they do not wear uniforms saying ‘‘I work under 

an AID contract.’’ No one knows in many cases that it is a contractor and an NGO working with us. It is done very low key. 

In fact, many of the organizations, particularly the NGOs, have 

had no deaths at all and have had no disruption of their operations 

in Iraq because they work at the community level very quietly and 

they get the support of the community and the local sheikhs to get 

their work done without any interference in a nonpolitical fashion. 

Have there been incidents? Yes, there have. Certainly. We have 

had the deaths of some local staff. We had a tragic incident a few 

weeks ago where a young woman who was an FSN—I think she 

is the only Foreign Service National who actually worked on the 

USAID staff in Baghdad—was killed. She was killed in her back 

yard by random fire and it was not direct fire. They tend to fire 

weapons in celebration sometimes in Baghdad and the bullet went 

up and it came down and it punctured her skull and she died from 

that. She was not being targeted. It was even random fire. 

From what the doctors tell us, the bullet literally came directly 

from the sky down. And in an urban area, you do not fire weapons 

like that, but that unfortunately has been going on in Baghdad for 

a long time. 

So we have had casualties, Senator, but we are getting our work 

done. I am very proud of the USAID work in agriculture, in education, in health, in micro finance, in the restoration of the 

marshes. 

One of the programs that is closest to my heart is the restoration 

of the marshes because next to the Kurds, the strongest pro American group of all of the Iraqis are the Marsh Arabs because they 

were most destroyed by Suddam, by the atrocities committed. And 
83 

we have done enormous work on a small budget in the marshes to 

restore the people’s livelihoods there. 

Senator MCCONNELL. I will turn to Senator Leahy. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will put my full 

statement in the record. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

Mr. Natsios, thank you for being here. I think we all appreciate what USAID is 

doing to respond to critical needs around the world. On top of everything else, you 

are coping with AIDS, the tsunami, Darfur, Afghanistan and Iraq. Any one of these 

challenges is daunting by itself. 

I also want to take a moment to respond to some of your remarks before the 

House Foreign Operations Subcommittee earlier this year. 

One of the things you said was that legislative restrictions often prevent USAID 

from doing its job. I agree that Congress needs to amend or repeal confusing and 

unnecessary provisions in the Foreign Assistance Act. 

But I disagree with the implication that if Congress would just get out of the way, 

USAID could do its job better. 

Over the past four years while OMB has cut your budget, this Subcommittee has 

consistently come to the rescue and added hundreds of millions of dollars to core 

USAID programs. 

There have also been many times when USAID has asked this Subcommittee to 

approve legislative authorities that were not cleared by OMB and in some cases actively opposed by the State Department. Had we not done so, authorities that 

USAID needed would have been bottled up by OMB and never seen the light of day. 

Despite your comments about the legislative restrictions that hinder USAID’s 

work, the Administration has not submitted a proposal to rewrite the Foreign Assistance Act. Each year, the Administration’s budget proposes only to remove almost 

every legislative provision in the Foreign Operations Act, which is not a serious proposal. 

Another issue is the red herring of ‘‘flexibility’’. The Administration’s recent track 

record with increased flexibility has not been encouraging. Iraq is the obvious example where we are dealing with all sorts of waste, fraud and abuse. 

Many restrictions are on the books because of lessons learned the hard way. One 

section of the Foreign Operations Act exists because Congress discovered that IMET 

funds were used to take foreign military officers to Disneyworld. 

During my tenure as Chairman or Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, Congress has had to take the initiative when the Administration did not. 

It was Chairman McConnell who had to earmark democracy money in the Iraq 

Supplemental, after the Administration failed to include any money to pay for elections or build democracy in Iraq. 

Not very long ago, USAID’s budget to combat tuberculosis worldwide was $4 million, which USAID at the time insisted was a ‘‘serious strategy.’’ We didn’t see it 

that way, and we dramatically increased funding. 

Earmarks are a sore subject. We know you don’t like them. But the fact is we 

are judicious about which earmarks to include. They are there because they have 

strong Congressional support, and usually because the Administration has failed, 

for no convincing reason, to do what we asked. 

Mr. Natsios, I hope you know that members of this Subcommittee believe in 

USAID’s mission and its people, and we want to work with you. But the Congress 

has a strong interest in how taxpayer funds are spent, and that is going to continue. 

Thank you. 

Senator LEAHY. But, Mr. Natsios, I hope you take time to read 

it. I express some concern—and I share your admiration for so 

many of your people working in the field—but I express concern 

about some comments you made at the other body in testifying basically sort of the idea it gives the impression that Congress meddles, gets involved too much, earmarks, so on. I will let you read 

it and you can let me know what you think. 
84 

But to point out that over the past 4 years where your administration has cut your budget, this subcommittee, for example, has 

consistently come to the rescue and added hundreds of millions of 

dollars to it. Chairman McConnell had to earmark democracy 

money in Iraq supplemental after the administration failed to put 

any in. 

I know sometimes you do not like some of these earmarks and 

oftentimes they are ignored anyway, but sometimes it is the only 

way to get to the money that has been cut out. In some ways, it 

would be an awfully lot easier for us simply to give you the budget 

that has been requested and ignore the back-door requests that we 

get from your Agency and others saying, please, please, please put 

this money back in that has been cut. 

So if it is bothering you that we put it back in and add a few 

earmarks, instead it would be a heck of a lot easier to just simply 

say, okay, we will give you the money that has been requested and 

you are going to get a lot less money. 

I do want to ask one question. I will submit the rest for the 

record, although in some ways, I hate to do that because they rarely get answered. 

They direct us, but—last year in the statement of managers, they 

point out operation of the ‘‘Appropriations Act.’’ Congress cited the 

important work done by the Global Health Council. 

We urge USAID to support the council’s work, but it appears you 

not only have not done that, but you abandoned 32 years of support 

for this organization. When an official of the U.N. population is 

going to speak at a panel at the Global Health Council’s annual 

conference, just being they are doing that, you withdrew support 

for the conference even though this official is not receiving any reimbursement for her participation. 

Next week, the Global Health Council is hosting here in Washington its annual conference, 2,000 participants, the largest gathering of global health program implementers in the world, those 

who have to implement a lot of the programs that you and I both 

support. The topic of this year’s conference is Health Systems. 

Obviously an important issue for a development Agency like 

USAID, which has a large portion of its budget committed to 

health. The head of the World Health Organization is chairing the 

conference. But I am told USAID does not even plan to participate. 

Are things so busy down at the office that nobody can even bother to participate? 

Mr. NATSIOS. Senator—— 

Senator LEAHY. Just curious. 

Mr. NATSIOS [continuing]. There are many traditional partners, 

1,600 of them, that USAID has done business with over the years. 

I come from the community, as you know. 

Senator LEAHY. I know. I am also saying this is one where you 

totally ignored what was in the manager’s package written by both 

republicans and democrats, House and Senate, regarding the Global Health Council. 

Mr. NATSIOS. Well, Senator, what we have tried to do is to move 

more toward nontraditional partners in a lot of work we do because 

there is a sense out there that USAID has a fixed number of part-
85 

ners. And if you are a traditional partner, you get the money. And 

if you are not, you do not. 

I have told the career staff repeatedly, and I think they are listening now, that we need to move beyond the notion that there are 

entitlements in the USAID budget for any NGO, any contractor, 

any agency first. 

Second, that we need to look toward institutions, communitybased institutions in the countries that we work in, more indigenous institutions. 

Senator LEAHY. Mr. Natsios, I understand all that. 

Mr. NATSIOS. And, third, that we do more competitive bidding. 

Senator LEAHY. But you have ignored—I mean, you do not even 

have anybody show up. When they had their annual conference last 

year, you had one Congressman. It was critical that somebody from 

UNPA was going to be there and you guys ran like scared rabbits. 

Now, I have put in time and time again. I have worked, cast 

chips in both sides of the aisle to get money for USAID, money that 

your own agency has told me you needed even though your administration said you did not. And, yet, when something like this 

comes in, it kind of makes one wonder. 

Mr. NATSIOS. Senator, I think USAID funds too many conferences around the world. I have instructed our staff to spend less 

money on conferences, more delivery of services, more training of 

staff, more scholarships, and more community-based programming. 

I think our staff spends too much time in every sector with partners that are friends of mine going to conferences. So I put a stop 

to it. 

Our delegations have been too large. We put new regulations in 

place to slow that all down because I think we are spending too 

much money on that. 

Senator LEAHY. Mr. Natsios, we are not asking you to fund any 

conference. The statement of managers does not do that. We just 

wondered if somebody could kind of walk across the street and 

even show up at the Global Health Council that has got 2,000 participants who are talking about global health programs or if they 

want to take a cab the two blocks, I will be glad to pay for it out 

of my own pocket. You have money for other things. You are about to give a $75 

million contract in Indonesia for a contractor who apparently has 

no expertise in that kind of work in that part of the world. You 

have got $75 million for that. 

You have really limited amounts of money that you are requesting for infectious diseases and, yet, we have a conference where 

people might actually be talking about that. 

I say this as somebody who has worked harder to support your 

budget than certainly anybody on my side of the aisle. I just wanted you to know I was disappointed. 

Senator MCCONNELL. Thank you, Senator Leahy. 

Senator DeWine. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE DE WINE

Senator DEWINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Natsios, thank you very much for being with us. Good to see 

you again. 
86 

Mr. NATSIOS. Nice to see you, Senator. 

Senator DEWINE. I would like to talk about something you and 

I talked about quite a bit and I know that many of the members 

of the committee are interested in. 

That is the whole issue of preventable childhood deaths in the 

world. We know there are millions of them, estimated 11 million 

preventable childhood deaths every year. 

I want to talk a little bit about philosophy. If you could take a 

couple minutes to talk about that and tell me how you approach 

this. It seems to me that we kind of have two maybe conflicting 

philosophies. One is looking at this from a development point of 

view and the other is from a more triage point of view. Go in, save 

as many lives as you can, as quickly as you can, vaccinations, 

whatever it takes to get it done. 

How do you balance those two and what is the proper philosophy? 

Mr. NATSIOS. Well, there has been a focus for the last decade in 

USAID which we are now going to begin changing with your help 

and cooperation. We have been focusing on the delivery of service, 

which is appropriate. Vaccinating children is very important. 

But the question is for me why is not the Ministry of Health capacitated to do this, because that is what ministries of health are 

supposed to do in the countries that we are working in. 

Senator DEWINE. But you have to assume there is a Ministry of 

Health. 

Mr. NATSIOS. Well, there is, but some of them are completely 

dysfunctional. 

Senator DEWINE. Dysfunctional? 

Mr. NATSIOS. Yes. They do not do any work or they do not have 

the capacity to manage these efforts. And the vaccination rates in 

Africa have actually been dropping even though we put a huge 

amount of money. We give $125 million that the Congress appropriates to UNICEF every year for vaccination programs and, yet, 

the vaccination rates are declining. 

So the problem is there are not enough trained health workers 

who are local nationals and when they are trained, they sometimes 

leave the country to go work in Europe or the United States or a 

wealthier country, in the Gulf states, for example. 

So working with the ministries to capacitate the ministries to 

train people in those ministries is very important. 

We used to provide 20,000 scholarships a year to students, many 

of whom came from the ministries, the Ministry of Agriculture, the 

Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Water. And they go to American universities, get their Master’s Degrees or their undergrad, 

and then they go back to the ministries and work. We stopped 

doing that. We only do 900 now a year. 

Our career staff tell me one of the most important things we did 

that we do not do now are the scholarship programs, because they 

do not just go back with a technical skill. They go back with an 

understanding of American culture, the American institutions, and 

why they work as well as they do. 

You will find, for example, if you look at the current Indonesian 

cabinet, 30 to 40 percent of the cabinet ministers received their de-
87 

grees with USAID scholarships 25 years ago. We are not doing that 

anymore. I think that is a big mistake. 

So I told our staff I know there has been a bias against long-term 

training, but we need to go back to this and we need to look at 

making sure they have a job because the reason they stay here or 

they do not go back home is because there is no job for them once 

they get their degree. 

We have done some studies in pilots that if they are ensured of 

a job back home, a good job, they will go home and work in their 

countries. 

So building capacity is going to be a greater focus of what we 

have done in the past because we cannot keep doing this every 

year without having the countries take control of their own destiny. 

So there is going to be more of a focus on local capacity building 

at the health clinic level, private hospitals, private clinics, not necessarily just through the Ministry of Health but indigenous, indigenously based. 

Senator DEWINE. I want to continue to explore this with you 

sometime when we have more time. And I do not disagree with 

that. It makes a lot of sense. But it is like anything else. It is like 

when we tell the FBI to worry about terrorism, they are not worrying about something else. 

We have to be honest with ourselves and say if you are doing 

that and you are building long-term capacity, what are you not 

doing? And, you know, I think you need to come forward to this 

committee and say we are building long-term capacity and this is 

what we are doing and it is great. And we think we should be 

doing that, but here is a hole. Seems to me there has to be a hole 

you are leaving. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. NATSIOS. I do agree with that. 

Senator DEWINE. You need to be telling this Congress there is 

a hole. 

Mr. NATSIOS. Right. 

Senator DEWINE. You are not doing this immunization or you 

are not doing vaccination, whatever is the hole that we are not 

doing because, you know, these are decisions that we have to be 

a part of too. 

So let me ask you another question. Let me move to this hemisphere. About half the people in our hemisphere live on less than 

a dollar a day. We know all the problems of the movement in this 

hemisphere now, kind of retrenching back away from democracy at 

least as far as popular opinion. 

When we look at our commitment to this hemisphere, my statistics, what I see shows 20 percent of our development assistance 

money, only 20 percent goes to this hemisphere, 12 percent of our 

child survival and 4 percent of our economic support fund spending 

goes to countries in this entire region. 

Is that the appropriate macro picture? Is that really appropriate 

for the hemisphere that we live in? 

Mr. NATSIOS. A large chunk of money, Senator is given to us to 

do alternate development programs in the Andean Initiative of the 

President to deal with the narcotics problem. 

Now, these are developmentally sound programs. I am very 

proud of many of them, in Bolivia, in Peru, in Ecuador, and in Co-
88 

lombia. However, they are tied to a larger national crisis that we 

face with the narcotics trade which is undermining democracy in 

Latin America and those countries too. 

Senator DEWINE. Why should that drain from these percentages? 

Mr. NATSIOS. Well, there is only a fixed amount of money and 

the administration and the Congress has determined that that is 

the first priority. 

We have an active development program in Central America 

which we put a lot of money. We have a very successful rural agricultural program, for example, in Honduras. We have trade capacity building that has—— 

Senator DEWINE. Excuse me. What we are saying, though, is 

again trying to talk about the policy. What we are saying is because we are dealing with, what I think is very important, a problem in Colombia, a problem in the Andean countries having to do 

with drugs, that means that because we are doing that, we cannot 

deal with child survival problems in this hemisphere. I am not sure 

I follow the logic of the policy and I am not saying it is your policy. 

Mr. NATSIOS. Sure. 

Senator DEWINE. I am saying what is the logic behind that policy decision? We put all our eggs in one basket in this hemisphere 

and we do not put money into child survival. We do not put it into 

economic support funding. We do not put it into developmental systems spending. 

It seems to me it is not really—if you really look at what we are 

doing in this hemisphere, it is not a balanced approach. 

Mr. NATSIOS. In terms of the humanitarian for the child survival 

programs, the health programs, they are targeted based on the levels of child mortality, female mortality, mothers’ mortality in having children. 

The rates have come down actually in Latin America. They are 

significantly below what they are in Africa, for example. And so we 

focus our attention in terms of our health programming in the 

areas of greatest need. 

There is one country in Latin America, as you may know, that 

is in the President’s emergency HIV/AIDS program and that is 

Haiti. Haiti has child malnutrition rates and child death rates 

which are comparable to the poorest areas of the world. 

But it is fair to say that in other countries in Latin America that 

is not the case. In fact, we have had a number of countries like 

Chile graduate from our programs. 

Senator DEWINE. Well, my time is up, Mr. Chairman. 

I would just say that if you look at some of the other accounts 

as far as developmental accounts, I do not think—I just think it is 

a fair statement that we as a country—and I am not blaming you 

for it—but as a country, when we look at Latin America, we look 

at this hemisphere, do not have a balanced approach to this hemisphere. 

I support what we are doing in Colombia and I support what we 

are doing in the war on terrorism and the war on drugs. I just do 

not think we have a balanced approach to this hemisphere. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MCCONNELL. Thank you, Senator DeWine. 
89 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. I am going to submit my statement for the record and just address three questions to three different points. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

Mr. Chairman: Thank you for calling this hearing so that we may listen to the 

testimony of Administrator Andrew Natsios of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). 

Humanitarian assistance is a crucial part of the foreign affairs budget of the 

United States. 

For more than 40 years, USAID has administered the bulk of U.S. bilateral economic aid to the developing nations of the world (USAID provided some form of assistance to about 150 countries in 2005). And while USAID’s programs remain a 

crucial part of our foreign policy, its role has changed, understandably, fit the needs 

of the present. 

Since being elected to the United States Senate I have had the privilege of visiting countries where USAID is responsible for many of the programs which assist 

those in great need. 

I have seen first hand the impact these programs, if well done, can have on the 

lives of people. 

I have visited Sri Lanka which was devastated beyond words by the Tsunami and 

where USAID was able to respond quickly and was able to provide life-saving relief 

to so many who would have otherwise perished. I visited Uganda where there are 

a staggering number of orphans due to the epidemic of HIV/AIDS and where USAID 

has had a significant presence since the revival of its relationship with Uganda in 

1980. I have also spent significant time in Romania, El Salvador, Honduras, Russia, 

and China working to find homes for children who begged for the love of family. 

While it is essential that we all forge ahead with efforts to strengthen the roots 

of democracy and foster the economic security for people around the globe where 

possible, we must remember the roots of democracy are best founded on strong families and vibrant communities. 

I would suggest that this is one area in which USAID needs to do better. By your 

own account, there will be 40 million children without families by the year 2010, 

over 60 percent of those because of the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Despite this, I am 

concerned the Vulnerable Children program, which provides the necessary care, support, and protection for these precious children, has been slashed by 63 percent. You 

state that one of the agency’s priorities is international crisis, but how high does 

this need to go? 

Another area, the empowerment of women should also be a primary objective due 

to the dramatic effect that it has on a society. Assisting women by encouraging 

equal partnership through not only funds but in skills and talents will benefit the 

spectrum of society. 

USAID has been entrusted with significant resources to assist in the rebuilding 

of Afghanistan and Iraq. While these are, and should be, very important in USAID’s 

mission, it is also important that we not lose sight of other ‘‘fragile states’’ around 

the world that are desperate for our helping hand. 

This week the European Union (EU) announced that it is doubling its aid to developing countries in the next five years. The United States still lags far behind 

other countries when calculated as a percent of Gross Domestic Income (GDI). Norway significantly outpaces the United States when using these calculations and 

ranks first while the United States shows up in 22nd place. 

While our policies continue to evolve in response to crises, we should not ever 

waiver from our duty to not only our own citizens, but those citizens of the world. 

Indeed, the instability of the world requires that we protect others so that ourown 

citizens maintain the freedoms and quality of life we cherish. 

I appreciate you taking the time today to share your thoughts with the members 

of the Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and related programs. 

Senator LANDRIEU. But first of all, Mr. Director, let me associate 

myself with Senator Leahy’s remarks and also Senator DeWine’s 

remarks. 
90 

You have got some champions on this committee for USAID and 

we want to be supportive and want to help find additional funding, 

you know, where we can. This administration has continued to cut 

USAID funding by raising the Millennium Challenge account and 

some of us feel like there should be an increase in other categories 

as well. 

I am pleased to see some of the progress we are making in the 

Millennium Challenge account and the way that it is established. 

I actually think it has a lot of merit. The concepts are very good. 

And as you said, there are two countries that have received full 

funding, some more on the list to receive it, and that process is ongoing. 

But for USAID, we have seen a 59 percent decrease in global 

fund for AIDS, TB, and malaria, a 28 percent decrease for infectious diseases, a 62 percent decrease in the category for vulnerable 

children. And I could go on and on and on. 

So we want to try to be supportive because I believe that this is 

part of our diplomacy and our strategy to have us be a reliable 

partner to help other countries stand up not only their democratic 

institutions but their education systems, their health care systems, 

et cetera. 

My question and really more of a comment, I have spent not as 

much time as some of these other members in other countries, but 

over the last few years, I have been in and out of probably ten. I 

always visit with the USAID directors there. 

What occurs to me is that we have in the past and continued to 

act as sort of a super contractor as opposed to a strategic leverager. 

I like to think about the parable of the loves and the fishes when, 

you know, Jesus was challenged with having to feed a multitude 

and he only had just a little bit. I know it was a miracle and we 

cannot hope for those exact same miracles maybe today, but he 

kind of took just a little bit and make it really, really work. 

I kind of see that as USAID’s strategic key role. You do not have 

a lot of money. But it seems to me that if you used it as a 

leverager, getting everybody to work together, I mean, all the 

NGOs working together instead of competing for grants, working 

together, and then look up and see the private donors, churches, 

faith-based organizations, corporations that need leadership and 

guidance, they have money, but they do not have access and they 

do not have power. But they have money. You have the power and 

the access. 

I just do not understand why we cannot put this together and 

have USAID’s role change to be not a super contractor where you 

line everybody up and say, okay, compete. They will all put in proposals. We only have enough money to fund one, but you all spend 

6 months coming up with a hundred proposals. It is a waste of 

everybody’s time. 

So I just throw that out. It is not a question. But to think about 

a new way of approaching this that takes into account money does 

not grow on trees and we cannot create miracles, but we can work 

harder to spread our money. 

Number two, orphans in the world are growing exponentially. 

Your own documents say that 60 percent of an increase is going to 

be basically because the parents are dying of AIDS. And unlike 
91 

other diseases that might take the life of one parent, this disease 

expressly takes the life of both because of its nature. 

So you are creating double orphans which is the way the international community, not single but double orphans. We have 40 

million plus in the country. 

I want to know on the record—and I was pleased to see from 

your web site this comment that you and USAID and this administration believe that children belong in families not orphanages. 

So could you comment about what USAID is doing to recognize 

this extraordinary and historic—never before has the world seen so 

many orphans. Never. Not in World War II, not any time. Not in 

the Plague. Never have we seen this many orphans. 

What are we doing as a Nation that values children and families 

to help stand this situation up? 

Mr. NATSIOS. Thank you, Senator. I know you have been a longtime supporter of USAID and you always when you travel, you 

visit our projects which we really do appreciate. 

You spent some time describing this leveraging function and 

what you basically described is the Global Development Alliance 

which we initiated four years ago. We had about 12 alliances when 

I arrived 4 years ago. I started May 1, 2001, so I have just passed 

my fourth birthday or anniversary with USAID. 

They were all successful and they leveraged a lot of money privately. In 1970, 70 percent of the money that flowed to the developing world came from USAID and 30 percent was what we would 

call private foreign aid from NGOs, corporations, charities, foundations, that sort of thing. 

Two years ago, the complete reverse had taken place. Eighty-five 

percent of the money that goes to the developing world from the 

United States is now private foreign aid and 15 percent is from our 

Government institutions, all Government institutions in the U.S. 

Government that goes into the developing world. 

So we realize that there has been a profound shift in funding. 

This is not because our budget was cut over 35 years. In fact, when 

I arrived as an administrator in calendar 2000, the year before I 

arrived, ODA, Official Development Assistance, which is all our foreign aid, was $10 billion. Last year, it was $19 billion. 

The President has increased foreign assistance from the U.S. 

Government, from all Federal agencies by 90 percent. We expect it 

to go up to as much as $24 billion this year, although we will not 

know until spending is finished. 

This is not appropriated money or proposed budgets. It is actual 

spending. So there is actually going to be a big increase because 

of the increases for the President’s AIDS initiative and the Millennium Challenge account which will begin to show up later this year 

and next year. 

So we will see larger increases in the next few years in foreign 

aid. 

Senator LANDRIEU. But orphans real quick as well. 

Mr. NATSIOS. Right. Let me just mention the GDA. We now have 

286 alliances with corporations, nontraditional donors, people that 

we do not do business with normally, foundations, universities, 

church groups, religious institutions. And we put in $1.1 billion 
92 

into these alliances and the private sectors put $3.7 billion in, $3.7 

billion. 

We are one of the 18 finalists out of 1,000 applicants to the Kennedy School of Government Innovations and Government Award, 

with this GDA process. 

So we are leveraging money on a huge basis, a four to one basis, 

286 of these—I can give you a list of these and you can see they 

are all over the world and they are quite innovative. There are new 

partners that we have not done business with before. 

In terms of orphans, it is one of the most serious crises. We are 

not going to see the real crisis until they become teenagers or in 

their twenties because if you have a country that is unstable and 

you have a very large number of particularly young men but also 

young women who have no parents, who are on the streets, you 

will begin to see gangs form and that will cause instability and 

crime in the cities will be massive. 

So we think there is a crisis facing us in another generation that 

we will see from this AIDS pandemic. There are millions of AIDS 

orphans in Africa now. 

Under the President’s AIDS Initiative, there is a portion of the 

account that is for the care of children, of people who have been 

affected by this, but particularly for orphans. 

Our approach is the approach you have mentioned. The adoption 

of children into families is a much better approach than institutional care because you will get care for a lot more children if you 

do it that way. And there is a tribal custom, particularly in sub Saharan Africa, that is stronger than anywhere else in the world. 

Children are regarded as valuable in Africa. 

There is great desire in the tribes to go through a traditional 

process of adopting a child who has been orphaned. The problem 

is there is so many of them now that the system is getting overwhelmed and there are not simply enough families. 

But this is a serious problem and we are doing a lot of pilots now 

with community-based programs to try to integrate these children 

into families on an organized basis and a large scale because the 

scale is massive. 

Senator LANDRIEU. My time is up. But, Mr. Chairman, I plan to 

pursue this issue to as far as I can through this budget year. 

Senator MCCONNELL. Thank you, Senator Landrieu. 

Senator Harkin. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM HARKIN

Senator HARKIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Natsios, section 579 of our bill had five different requirements under the heading of disability requirements. I know 

you are committed to working to integrating disability access and 

inclusion into all of USAID’s projects throughout the world. 

Could you just kind of just briefly for the record tell us what 

progress USAID has made to date in accomplishing this? 

Mr. NATSIOS. Well, the first thing is, Senator Harkin, that we are 

now obligating the money that is in the ESF account which is controlled by the State Department. It is $2.5 million for people with 

disabilities. And we are working that in a partnership with the 

State Department for the careful use of these monies. 
93 

We hope that 75 percent of this money will be spent by the end 

of fiscal 2005, but it is a 2-year appropriation, so we will have a 

little bit of time at the end of this year and beginning of next year 

to spend it as well. 

We are making as many grants and funding as possible from this 

fund to disabled people’s organizations, not just groups that help 

disabled people but disabled people’s organizations and through locally-based organizations that are indigenous to build capacity so 

that they become sustainable on their own. Because if you just help 

them once through an international NGO, you have no guarantee 

that the next year, if there is no funding, that will continue. 

Indigenous organizations in my view are the way we should be 

putting more money. 

We have a program to train the USAID staff in disability programming and that curriculum is being designed now. And there 

will be a large-scale program of instruction. It will be done directly 

by trainers and also over the Internet. We have large-scale IT programs where our staff learn on the internet because we are spread 

out all over the world. We are working on that now. 

We have designed standardized plans, which I think I have 

shown you in your office, of new schools that we are building. In 

Iraq and Afghanistan, we are building a large number of schools 

and health clinics so that they are accessible to disabled people. 

Senator HARKIN. You can assure me that that is in place and—— 

Mr. NATSIOS. It is in place, Senator. 

Senator HARKIN. Okay. That is great. 

Mr. NATSIOS. Yes. 

Senator HARKIN. That is great. 

Mr. NATSIOS. I will show you. In fact, we will bring you some pictures. 

Senator HARKIN. That is great. Thank you. 

Mr. NATSIOS. We are aware that this is a problem. I have to say 

I have been all over the developing world and probably to 50 countries in the last 4 years and some of the most difficult scenes I 

have seen are of disabled people, because countries that are very 

poor simply do not have the infrastructure to care for people. And 

so I am very sympathetic to your perspective on this, sir. 

Senator HARKIN. Well, I think you are doing a great job. And I 

just want to applaud you for moving ahead on this. You know, a 

little bit here and there and we are doing a lot of reconstruction. 

As we have learned in the past that if you start in the beginning 

in terms of construction or reconstruction, the costs of making it 

accessible are really zero. I mean, they are just not anymore. It is 

just a design concept and how you do it. 

Because there are so many people who have suffered disabilities, 

especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, that as long as we are going to 

be doing these things, we ought to be at least doing them right 

from the beginning. So I applaud your effort in that regard. 

Following up on that, I just might want to ask you about Iraq. 

And does USAID have an individual or someone who is responsible 

for advising and overseeing the projects in Iraq from a disability 

perspective, making sure that they comply, that they do have some 

accessibility guidelines that type of thing? Do you have someone 

like that? 
94 

Mr. NATSIOS. I have appointed in Washington Lloyd Feinberg to 

coordinate for the whole Agency and we have asked the mission director to focus attention on this not just in one sector but in all of 

the sectors, health, education, agriculture, water, sanitation. 

I can give you some excellent examples of what Iraqis are doing 

on the ground. There is a community action program, CAP, which 

the Congress generously gave, I think in the last supplemental, an 

additional $100 million. 

We are constructing an educational outreach center in the 

Maysan Governorate through the Iraqi Red Crescent Society and 

they are rehabilitating the sidewalk around the building that will 

allow it to be accessible for disabled people. And there are about 

16,000 men and 4,600 women who are disabled who will now be 

able to get access. 

CAP is a program that uses, I think, five very well-known American NGOs to do small community access programs across the 

country. And I might add, it is astonishing in the middle of the insecurity that we face that many of these NGOs have had not one 

security incident at all because they are so imbedded in the community, the community protects them. And many of their projects 

are very sensitive. 

We have told them we want a focus because there are a very 

large number of amputees from the Iraq-Iran War. More than 

100,000 young men were killed in that war and there were many, 

many casualties. And they have not been cared for all these years. 

So there is a focus now on attempting to focus on that. 

Senator HARKIN. Secretary, I heard your response earlier to a 

question. I forget even who asked it. But it sticks in my memory 

about not being a big fan of all these conferences that people run 

to all the time. And I might just say I tend to agree with you on 

that. Have these conferences and people go, and then you wonder 

what the conference is all about. 

But I guess to every rule, there is an exception perhaps. Section 

579 also referenced using funds for an international conference of 

needs of persons with disabilities. Poland, I understand, had 

planned to host such a conference, but it has fallen through. 

The only thing I would have you think about in terms of this 

kind of a conference is because we have not really focused much 

on this with these other countries and because we, the United 

States, have come a long way in terms of universal design and 

what universal design means, I just think it might be good to have 

something like this so that these people who are running these programs in these other countries can come—I do not know if Poland 

wants to do it again or not, to host it—but to learn and to get the 

kind of information on universal design which they can take back. 

I just ask you to think about that. Like I say, I tend to generally 

agree with you on sometimes conferences are just do-good affairs, 

the people go and nothing really happens. But in this case, the 

transmittal of information and ideas and concepts of which we really have come a long way in this country—we are the best in the 

world on universal design—might be something that you might 

take a look at. That is. I just ask you to think about that because 

it was in section 579. 
95 

Mr. NATSIOS. I met with a minister. I do not remember his title, 

a minister in the Polish Government. He came to visit me in Washington and we exchanged information as to what we were doing. 

The Polish Government has now set up their own foreign assistance program and we are looking to partner with them in other 

countries. And they want to put a focus particularly on disabilities 

and we told them we would work with them on that. 

So whether the conference comes off or not, we are still going to 

work together with the Polish Government. 

Senator HARKIN. Even if it is not a conference, some way of getting the—— 

Mr. NATSIOS. Yes. 

Senator HARKIN [continuing]. Foreign concepts and stuff out to 

these other countries. If not a conference, maybe some other way 

of doing it. Maybe just—I do not know. Maybe there is other ways 

of doing it. 

Mr. Chairman, I know my time has run. 

I really wanted to ask you just one question about the food aid 

to clear up some of the issues here. I had talked about this when 

Secretary Rice was here. There seems to be a little bit of confusion 

about the $300 million. A lot of us who have been involved in Public Law 480 for now 30 years on my part, this is a great program. 

It has worked well. And we are concerned about the taking funds 

from Public Law 480 for these emergency situations. 

Could you just kind of clear that up for me, please? 

Mr. NATSIOS. Sure. Senator, I ran the food aid programs under 

the President’s father in USAID at a lower level. Food for Peace 

reported to me. I am devoted to food assistance as a concept. I have 

written a book on famines and I wrote the introduction to Fred 

Cuny’s book on how you combat famines. 

Fred Cuny died in Chechenia. He is a celebrated figure in the 

famine relief work and he has written many books before his premature death. 

Fred said that we always lose a lot of people at the beginning 

of famines, particularly ones that we did not anticipate, or emergencies like Darfur that did not start out as a famine. It was just 

atrocities taking place because the places are in such remote areas; 

it takes 3 to 4 months to ship the food and get it there. 

It is in all the literature. All of the experts on famine would say 

we have a problem in the early stages. We need our agricultural 

system in the United States, not just our farmers but our shippers, 

our companies that process the food and bag the food and dock 

workers. 

This is a very important system. I would not want to disassemble 

that. And some people think this is the beginning of a trend. It is 

not. I would strenuously oppose any effort to undo what has been 

a remarkably successful program that has saved tens of millions of 

lives. 

I have watched children die in famines waiting for the food to arrive. We now have famine conditions in some areas of Ethiopia because there were very bad rains and it is much worse than what 

we had anticipated probably because there was an emergency 2 

years ago and people are still recovering from the emergency 2 

years ago. 
96 

You generously provided, and several of you helped put that 

through, the fact it went through this committee, $240 million in 

additional Public Law 480, Title II which we are using. The day 

the President signed the bill, I ordered the food through USDA. 

USDA orders the food for us at our request. It is going to take 3 

to 4 months to get there. What happens between now and then? 

We propose taking in the President’s budget $300 million to put 

in the emergency account to allow us to do some local purchase. 

There is always food in a famine, always. I have never seen a famine where there is not. But it is just so expensive, people cannot 

afford it. 

We are proposing to look for surpluses for that 3- to 4-month 

window at the beginning of an emergency and then huge amounts 

of food will come later from the United States to do the bulk of the 

work. 

This is simply an effort to stop early deaths in these emergencies, whether it is Darfur or whether it is Ethiopia or whether 

it’s northern Uganda. It is not an attempt to undo. I would never 

support that, sir. 

Senator MCCONNELL. You need to wrap up your answer, Mr. 

Natsios. 

Mr. NATSIOS. I’m sorry, sir? 

Senator MCCONNELL. If you could wrap up your answer. 

Mr. NATSIOS. Yes. And so we would be willing to negotiate a talk 

to change the amount or to even just give the authority to the administrator of USAID to use part of the existing appropriation in 

Public Law 480, a certain percentage, a small percentage for local 

purchase in emergency situations. 

Senator MCCONNELL. Senator Brownback. 

Senator HARKIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Natsios, for clearing 

that up. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Director Natsios, for your life’s work. You have 

worked in a lot of places and done a lot of good. You are head of 

an Agency now that helps a lot in very afflicted areas of the world. 

And I applaud your work and what you have done. 

I am going to bring up a couple of the issues that I would like 

to address and put these out in front of you. 

On malaria, I have had some discussions with you and your office. And I would hope as we mark this bill up that our malaria 

work will be more on delivering of actual product. 

Some I have mentioned to you privately and I am going to be 

working on it in the appropriation bill, actual product, actual 

spraying, indoor spraying for malaria or for mosquitoes in malariainfested area. 

This one is one of those that I see as low-hanging fruit, that we 

really can save a lot of lives pretty rapidly if we can deliver product 

in some of these intense, tough areas. 

I know you are very familiar with that. I just mention it to you 

that it is something I am going to be working with hopefully the 

chairman, that we can get more actual product delivered there. 
97 

There was water well drilling account that was put in last year on the House side of $9 million for water well drilling that we had 

hoped a number of private groups would start drilling water wells, 

particularly in sub Sahara Africa. Water is again, you know, one 

of these you have got to have it. You have got to have good water. 

If you can have that, that is a basic that you can build some other 

things on. 

There are a number of groups that are willing to drill water 

wells, I think pretty effectively, fairly, reasonably priced. And the 

more water wells we can drill in these places the better off they 

are. 

I hope you can look at breaking those funds free so that they actually can go for these NGO groups and drilling water wells, particularly sub Sahara Africa. That money, it was report language, 

but to my knowledge to date, it has not been spent or used. 

This is one of these areas Jeffrey Saks has had a series of articles out recently about ending poverty which is a dream that people 

have aspired to for a millennium. I do not know that it is possible, 

but, you know, there are basics to it. And one of them is water. 

The majority of leaders got a water bill. And I would hope we 

would break those funds free to be able to use and to appropriate 

and to actually count these folks. And, okay, we are going to contract with you $1 million and we want X number of wells drilled 

in these areas. 

I hope they are all posted with drilled with American money, 

American taxpayer money, and people would know that this money 

came from the United States to give them clear, fresh water. They 

need that. 

On Senator Landrieu’s point on orphans—and I have been to 

some of these places. You have been to a number of them. The 

scale of orphans is just massive anymore. 

One of the things that I thought that we ought to be able to tap 

into and we tried a few years back with the Clinton administration, 

did not get it going, but the private sector in the United States, if 

you, if the agency or somebody could do a due diligence and went 

into Uganda, Zambia, somewhere and said, okay, if you invested in 

this group in that place or helped this group, we have done a due 

diligence. 

We believe this is an authentic local group. We believe that they 

are helping with a number of people. We cannot do this with 100 

percent reliability, but we have people on the ground. We have 

checked it out and we will monitor this periodically. 

I think you could tap millions of dollars in the United States of 

people that want to help orphans, but they do not know where to 

put the money. They do not know who is doing things. I mean, they 

have groups that they are supporting from here, but they have a 

limited capacity too. 

That you could almost take your orphanage money if you did due 

diligence in a number of targeted countries and telling people, 

okay, this group in Uganda, northern Uganda is a reliable bunch 

and post it on your web site, do disclaimers about you cannot check 

this all the time, but we do monitor this group and work with 

them, that there would be a lot of funds you could tap into because 

people really do want to help. 
98 

We have got a bill. It is a bipartisan bill on a bioshield two. This 

is a totally separate topic, but I just want to make you aware of 

it. 

About 90 percent of the people in the world die of diseases where 

we invest about 10 percent of the money for researching pharmaceutical products. Most of the research in pharmaceutical products 

goes for diseases in the western world because that is where the 

market is. So you do not get much investment in malaria, river 

blindness, sleeping sickness. You know the list of diseases that 90 

percent of the people of the world actually die of but get a very 

small percentage of the research. 

In the bioshield two bill is a provision that says that we will pick 

certain of these diseases that we want to find a cure for and if you, 

the pharmaceutical company cannot identify a cure, we will let you 

extend a patent on your current product in a limited range to be 

able to access some funds to be able to do this in the developing 

world. 

I hope that we just target into lifestyle drugs in the United 

States and say we can give a year patent extension, 2-year patent 

extension, but you have got to find a vaccine that cures malaria. 

You get that, we will give you this to get some of that research 

funding into some of these diseases that impact millions of people 

that they die of. 

That is not in your shop. I put it in front of you because I am 

seeing Gates Foundation, other people stepping up in this area of 

really a huge lack of funding in these disease categories where so 

many people die from. And what a beautiful contribution if we 

could hit on a couple of these, even one of them, we could save tens 

of millions of lives. 

I was at a meeting yesterday with Warren Hatch, Joe 

Liebermann on this topic. I think we have got the makings of a 

good possibility here and to really save a lot of lives. I put those 

out in front of you. 

Chairman, I have spoken most of my time. 

You can respond to those if you would like. I just wanted to lay 

those in front of you. 

Mr. NATSIOS. Senator, first, let me mention the malaria issue 

which is something that concerns me. Our staff has gotten malaria, 

I mean because three-quarters of our staff are in the field. We have 

actually had staff that has died from cerebral malaria in USAID 

over the years. 

So we take it very seriously. And we know 1 to 2 million people 

die each year from malaria, and because people do not get it in the 

west and the north, people do not focus on it. We focus on it because we live there. Our staff is out there all the time and they 

see the consequences. 

I have been to a village in Darfur about 10 years ago. I walked 

in. The birds were eating the entire crop. I said why do you not 

harvest the crop. The entire village had malaria. They could not 

get out of their sickbeds to harvest it and they were hungry the 

next year because the birds ate the entire crop literally in front of 

us. 
99 

So I know it has other consequences than just the disease itself. 

And if you are under 5 and you get malaria, there is a 50 percent 

chance you will die from it. 

We have invested a lot of money, $8 million in the field tests 

with other donor governments to test an Asian herb, artemicia. 

And there is a drug therapy called ACT with artemician. We did 

the field tests, worked with other agencies to do the field tests to 

make sure that, in fact, this was the optimum way of approaching 

this. It is. And there is a WHO report now that many donors contributed to, including us, that proves that this is, in fact, a very 

viable strategy. 

What we have done is we funded the planting of 2,200 acres in 

Africa of this herb and we are now working with companies to 

begin African companies, not western companies, to begin to process this in the appropriate amounts that will actually have the desired effect because it is very effective against malaria. 

It is better that the Africans do it themselves and it become an 

industry in Africa and work itself into the marketplace because the 

best way to get anything distributed in Africa is through the private markets. 

That is our plan. We are working on that now and we are beginning the process. We have now proven it works and we are trying 

to extend it. I can provide some written material to you, Senator, 

on these other issues because I know my time is up. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you. 

Senator MCCONNELL. Thank you, Mr. Natsios. 

I am going to turn to Senator Bennett. And I see that Senator 

DeWine is here. 

Would you like another round? 

Senator DEWINE. That is up to you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MCCONNELL. Senator Bennett. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT

Senator BENNETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Natsios, like the other members of the committee, let me 

thank you for your service, your expertise in an area that some 

might consider fairly arcane, but we appreciate your passion and 

your dedication for this. 

Listening to this, I have several items that just kind of jump out 

at me at random. First, your reference to the scholarship program. 

I remember a dinner I had with a finance minister of a country 

that I shall not name publicly for reasons that may become obvious. And I said to him—this was in his own country. We were having dinner together. I said to him, what do you need the most. And 

he did not hesitate for a minute. He said I need 15 people I can 

trust. 

I preside over a bureaucracy that is about 50,000 people. And 

this is a country where the government is the employer of last resort maybe. And he said I could fire every one of them if I had 15 

people I could trust and I keep trying to get AID to pay for scholarships. This particular man has a Ph.D. in economics from one of 

America’s most prestigious universities. And he said if I could get 

15 young people to come back with Ph.D.s from legitimate Amer-
100 

ican universities, I could run my whole bureaucracy and fire the 

other 50,000. 

USAID says to me, no, we do not do scholarships. And the reason 

is you will just pick your nephew and your brother-in-law and 

whatever and send them to the United States to study at our expense. And he said my response to them was, okay, you pick. Do 

you think our government is sufficiently corrupt, we will not pick. 

He says I still cannot get them to do it. 

So I simply tell you that story to underscore your dedication to 

the idea of scholarships. And it may not be as long term a payout 

as you have indicated in your testimony here. There may be a turnaround within 5 to 10 years if this particular fellow is indicative 

of the kind of help that they really need in the government. So I 

leave you with that. 

Micro credit, micro credit is one of my passions. I raised it with 

Secretary Rice when she appeared before the subcommittee. 

Could you comment briefly on what your plans are for micro 

credit, what percentages you plan to put out for micro credit? I understand you prefer private contractors. 

My own experience is that the issue is to get the micro credit 

into the hands of the people rather than to have money that is 

dedicated to micro credit eaten up with administrative processes. 

So I would like your comment on that. 

One final issue, we were in Palestine. I was enormously impressed with the new Palestinian leadership, specifically the finance minister, who is cleaning up the corruption. 

I said to him the American press says that Arafat made off with as much as $1 billion. That is a staggering sum. Could that be possibly true? And he said, yeah. He said we have recovered $660 million so far and we are still digging and finding. 

I think this may not be in your area of responsibility and if it 

is not, then correct me, but I know there are some in my party who 

say we cannot give aid directly to the Palestinian authority. I think 

that attitude was more than justified with Arafat skimming $1 billion off the top. I do not think it is justified with the new anti-corruption attitude that we have in this new finance minister. 

I think as a demonstration of America’s confidence in the new 

government and an encouragement to them to continue at least the 

promises they have made with respect to terrorism, promises that 

Arafat never intended to keep, that we should make aid available 

directly to the Palestinian authority instead of insisting as some 

might think in the other body do that it goes through NGOs or 

some other places and has strings attached. I think it is very important for the legitimacy of the Palestinian authority to get money 

directly. 

So those are my concerns and I would be happy to hear whatever 

responses you might have on any of them. 

Senator MCCONNELL. Before you respond, Mr. Natsios, I must go. 

I have asked Senator Bennett to wrap up. If Senator DeWine 

would like another round and that works for you, too, that would 

be fine. Thank you for coming. 

Senator Stevens had a statement he would like to put in the 

record as well. 

[The statement follows:] 
101 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

In the fiscal year 2006 Foreign Operations budget, the President eliminated $37 million in total aid to Russia from $88 million in fiscal year 2005, to $51 million 

in fiscal year 2006. I am concerned that such a drastic cut does not take into account the needs of the Russian Far East. 

The Russian Far East faces numerous challenges not present in the more urban 

areas of Western Russia, including economic and social development and foreign direct investment. It is in these areas that I see the most drastic cuts, and it is in 

these areas that the Russian Far East depends the most on foreign aid. 

In addition to completely zeroing out economic policy reform, the presidential request cuts in half the aid for small business development, improved local governance 

and economic development, and health and child welfare. 

The situation in the Russian Far East is analogous in many ways to the situation 

faced by towns and villages in rural Alaska, including; limited access to these areas, 

a lack of infrastructure, and a lack of basic amenities like running water, waste disposal, and sewer systems. Additionally, the Russian Far East has a multitude of humanitarian issues such as high rates of fetal alcohol syndrome, alcoholism, and tuberculosis. These are factors unique to the Russian Far East, and require special 

attention. The cuts the President has requested do not reflect the great needs that 

have yet to be met in the Russian Far East. 

Due to the similarities between the Russian Far East and rural Alaska, it is also 

important to continue working with the University of Alaska-America-Russia Center 

and Alaska Pacific University to aid efforts in business development and expanding 

health and public works efforts. I am pleased to see the administration support the 

important work these institutions do for the Russian Far East, and look forward to 

continued support for these programs in the future. 

I am also concerned to see that the funding used to provide financial support and 

basic equipment to drill local water wells, addressing the need for clean drinking 

water in Third World countries as well as rural Alaska, has been zeroed out in fiscal 

year 2006. This not only affects persons living in rural Alaska and the Russian Far 

East, but people all across the Third World who lack sufficient drinking water. Lack 

of support for these efforts could lead to a serious humanitarian issue in the future. 

I hope the State Department and administration will consider all of these issues 

in allocating resources to Russia and the Third World. 

Mr. NATSIOS. Thank you, Senator. These are really good questions. 

The first is there has been a policy against scholarships in 

USAID even though the career officers bitterly complain against it. 

We had a meeting of our 80 mission directors last week. Secretary Rice spoke to us. And I announced that we were rescinding 

the policy and we are going to go back to a scholarship program. 

We have got to find the money to do it, however. I just want to say 

that. 

Senator BENNETT [presiding]. If you have additional problems, 

let us know and we will help you with some language in the bill. 

Mr. NATSIOS. We will. But I went to everyone and I said you are 

going to resist this. They said resist this? We have been waiting 

for this for years. We resent the policy that had been established 

earlier. 

Senator BENNETT. Okay. Good. 

Mr. NATSIOS. So they now have carte blanche to say yes depending on the country and the ministry. It does depend on the country. 

Senator BENNETT. I understand. 

Mr. NATSIOS. Okay. In terms of micro credit in fiscal year 2001, 

we spent $156 million in micro credit. In 2004, we spent $190 million. And we expect to reach $200 million this year. 

I am a strong supporter of micro finance because a lot of the jobs 

created are not just, I might add, in the developing world but in 

the United States are from smaller enterprises, right? A famous 

MIT study from some years ago noted that most new employment 
102 

in the United States is not created by very big companies but by 

small companies. 

In some countries, the ministries will say we want to have our 

own micro finance program. We want a piece of legislation in. 

NGOs are very good, and I came from the NGO community. I started the micro finance programs in World Vision when I was there 

10 years. I was vice president for 5 years. USAID supports NGOs. 

We are the principal funder in the world of NGOs to do micro finance. But they cannot be the only ones we work with. 

When a government says help us write a statute that will get 

through the parliament to establish indigenous micro finance lending institutions, I send a technical expert to do that and that is 

usually from a university or a contracting agency that has expertise in this. 

Sometimes the central banks want to help rewrite their regulations to facilitate smaller loans. Central banks are not something 

micro lending NGOs deal with. But can it affect the amount of 

money available? Oh, profoundly if you write the regulations the 

right way. 

So technical assistance does count sometimes and we do not want 

a situation where we are having competition between the NGOs 

and these technical people because we need both of them. If we do 

not have both of them, we are not going to succeed in this in the 

longer term. 

In terms of the Palestinian Authority, the President is going to 

tell me what to do and I am going to do it. 

I happen to personally favor your position on this because the finance minister is very well regarded by the USAID mission. He is 

what he appears to be from what we can see and we work with him 

all the time and talk with him. 

But there is a prohibition in law against us giving money to the 

PA unless there is a presidential waiver and restrictions. Actually, 

we did not have money stolen because we did not put much money 

through the PA. And when we did, we had it. 

We made agreements that the money would be put in a bank account in the bank of our choice and there were concurrent audits 

being done to make sure that did not happen because we heard stories. 

Senator BENNETT. He stole it from—he was an equal opportunity 

thief. 

Mr. NATSIOS. Yes, he did. 

Senator BENNETT. He stole it from everybody. 

Mr. NATSIOS. Yes, he did. We think that the best hope for peace 

right now is to support the President who was elected democratically by his own people. He is a moderate. He wants to end the 

violence and the President met with him today. 

I do not know what agreements were made. But whatever they 

are, we are going to do them. Secretary Rice is focusing on this. We 

are focusing on it. I deal with it every week. And, Senator, if I am 

told to do it, I am going to do exactly what they tell me to do. 

Senator BENNETT. Well, simply carry the message back that 

there is at least one appropriator who would look very kindly on 

that particular focus. 

Senator DeWine. 
103 

Senator DEWINE. I just have a couple more questions. 

You talked very eloquently about the change that you would like 

to make in regard to food aid and the flexibility you would like. 

I wonder if you could just talk a little bit about the overall issue 

of food aid. We were able to get a little money for you all in the 

supplemental. But as you look at the next budget that we are getting ready to prepare now or the appropriations we are working on 

now and the year ahead, where are we in the world? 

Mr. NATSIOS. Well, Senator, the problem with food aid and our 

budgeting process is that our budgets are put together about a year 

to a year and a half before they are actually appropriated. 

Senator DEWINE. Right. 

Mr. NATSIOS. And so I cannot tell when there is going to be a 

drought or genocide or a civil war, an insurgency. And for a number of years now—it is not just the last 2 years—70 to 75 percent 

of our funding through Title II goes to emergencies. And I do not 

expect frankly that is going to change a lot. 

We have a very serious crisis in Zimbabwe now, in northern 

Uganda, in eastern Congo, in Darfur. In southern Sudan, there is 

a drought and we do not want to disrupt the peace process that has 

taken us all these years to reach fruition. And there are food aid 

needs in the south, but particularly in Ethiopia where there has 

been a serious drought. 

I cannot predict what conditions are going to be like once the 

budget passes because it will be affected by the crop that is harvested this fall in many of these countries. I watch this on a daily 

basis in terms of the food programs because I know it means the 

difference between life and death for many people. 

When there is a need, USAID goes through the interagency process to try to access the Emerson trust. We accessed the Emerson 

trust in Darfur. And I have no hesitancy going to ask for assistance 

through that mechanism which, of course, will allow us the flexibility when we do not have the amount of appropriation we need. 

So that is a very important tool that we have. But the other tool 

that I would like is at least some degree of the ability to do local 

purchase. It could be done through the means in the budget which 

is the mechanism that I support. 

Of course, this is through different committees; it would be the 

Agriculture Committees and Appropriations Committees that 

would have to do this—is perhaps a change that allowed maybe 10 

or 15 percent of Title II to be used for local purchase when there 

is an emergency situation that requires immediate attention. 

The more tools we have that are more flexible, the more people’s 

lives we can save and the more crises we can prevent from getting 

to the critical point. None of us want to see people die. And 60 percent of the food that goes to the World Food Program comes from 

the United States. We are the largest donor of humanitarian assistance. 

According to the DAC, the Development Assistance Committee of 

the OECD that keeps records on all donors, on the emergency side, 

which is droughts and civil wars and natural disasters, the U.S. 

Government is 50 percent of the total for all donors in the world 

comes from U.S. Government, principally from the PRM account of 

the State Department and USAID’s accounts. 
104 

I am very proud of that. I work on it very hard. And we appreciate the support of the Senate and the House on these appropriation bills because without the appropriations, we cannot do this 

work. 

But I cannot predict what is going to happen in the future in 

terms of crops and droughts and civil wars unfortunately. I wish 

I could. 

Senator DEWINE. Of course, we had to come up with a figure in 

regard to the money. So that is—— 

Mr. NATSIOS. I am told by OMB that I support the—— 

Senator DEWINE. Yes, I understand. 

Mr. NATSIOS [continuing]. Budget as proposed. Of course, Senator. 

Senator DEWINE. Of course you do. We understand that. 

I wonder if you could talk a little bit about the situation in the 

Congo. The reports are that 1,000 people a day possibly die from 

preventable diseases and hunger because humanitarian groups 

simply cannot reach them. 

What is USAID doing to develop new strategies for the Congo 

and other conflicts where there are large parts of the territory that 

are really just inaccessible to humanitarian aid groups? 

Mr. NATSIOS. There is, of course, a horrendous civil war with unspeakable atrocities. I do not even want to discuss them in public. 

They are in some cases worse, worse than what has happened in 

Darfur. The problem is there are not people reporting it, so the 

media does not see what has happened there. 

One of the first acts that I undertook when I became Administrator was to review our emergency budgets both, Title II and the 

OFDA budget, the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, a program 

I ran under the President’s father, to see if we could come up with 

money for eastern Congo, which is where the focus of these atrocities are. 

The level of mass rape has been unimaginable. In some cities, 

two-thirds of the women have been raped. The violence against 

women—I have never seen anything so horrific. It is horrible in 

Darfur, but it is just as horrible in eastern Congo. 

We have begun a whole program to try to stop that and we 

worked with some members of the international community to see 

if we cannot get some rape convictions. And as of now, based on 

some funding we provided to institutions, international institutions, 70 people have now been convicted of rapes and put in jail 

in very highly visible cases. 

You do not have to put everybody in jail who commits the rapes. 

All you have to do is do it and do it visibly because it sends a message that you cannot have impunity in this kind of violence. 

The second problem that we are facing right now is one of the 

major crops that people survive on are bananas. You know, that is 

the principal crop in Burundi, Rwanda, and part of eastern Congo. 

There is a banana virus now that is spreading very rapidly and 

killing much of the banana crop. 

There is an improved variety of banana that was developed by 

some of the international research that USAID funds with other 

donors through the World Bank. And we are trying now to use 

funds appropriated in the 2005 budget to begin to spread this ba-
105 

nana-resistant crop that will supplant the virus-prone plant that is 

now dying. 

We have tested this. It does work. It does not get the virus if it 

is planted. And it is just as good and just as productive. So we are 

trying to do that as a developmental intervention. 

The third thing we are facing now is the spread of disease. The 

number of people according to reporting that the International Rescue Committee has done on child deaths in some of the cities are 

simply astronomical. 

I am at a loss to figure out how the death rates could have been 

this high. It cannot be just disease. I think part of it must have 

been disruption of the markets and a disruption of people’s family 

income so they cannot access the markets. 

But we are looking at this now and we have put a number of 

grants through OFDA in place to do immunizations working with 

UNICEF and the NGO Committee which we will continue. 

Senator BENNETT. Well, I thank you very much. Your testimony 

has been very, very helpful. 

Mr. NATSIOS. Thank you. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator BENNETT. There will be some additional questions which 

will be submitted for your response in the record. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Agency for response subsequent to the hearing:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL

ARMENIA

Question. Congress recommended up to $3 million in fiscal year 2005 funds for 

ongoing humanitarian needs in Nagorno-Karabakh—does USAID anticipate providing this funding? 

Does USAID have the capacity to increase activities in Nagorno-Karabakh, and 

if so, what additional programmatic opportunities exist? 

Answer. Between fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 2005, USAID obligated $25.2 

million for Nagorno-Karabakh (including $2 million in fiscal year 2005). 

USAID continues to carry out humanitarian work at levels that USAID believes 

to be effective and appropriate in meeting the basic needs of those in NagornoKarabakh. USAID’s humanitarian assistance to Nagorno-Karabakh supports basic 

shelter, primary and maternal health, income generation, potable and irrigation 

water supply and sanitation, subsistence agriculture, schools, and mine clearance. 

EGYPT

Question. What is the fiscal year 2006 budget request for democracy programs for 

Egypt, and does USAID intend to support indigenous groups—such as the Ibn 

Khaldoun Center—with these funds? 

Does USAID support continuation of language in current law that denies the 

Egyptian Government’s veto over democracy and governance activities? 

What is USAID’s view on the $200 million Commodity Import Program for 

Egypt—has it outlived its usefulness? 

Answer. The USAID fiscal year 2006 budget request for democracy programs is 

$25.4 million. Part of these monies will be used to support indigenous groups. We 

will fund ideas to promote political reform from Egyptian civil society actors, such 

as the Ibn Khaldoun Center. 

USAID supports continuation of language in current law that denies the Egyptian 

Government’s veto over democracy and governance activities. 

Given the GOE’s shift to a market determined exchange rate and the increased 

availability of foreign exchange, USAID is looking at options for reprogramming the 

Commodity Import Program’s funding. 
106 

TSUNAMI ASSISTANCE

Question. Congress recently approved $656 million for the Tsunami Recovery and 

Reconstruction Fund. The world was generous in pledging assistance to impacted 

areas following the tsunami—are pledges being fulfilled, and if not, which countries 

are delinquent? 

Answer. Figures compiled by the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) indicate that humanitarian assistance commitments/contributions are about two thirds of the amount initially pledged by donors. In a June 6 

report, the United States is listed among donors that have yet to fulfill their 

pledges, although total U.S. commitments to date, including DOD expenses, exceed 

the $350 million U.S. pledge. OCHA reports other donors that have yet to fully meet 

their pledges include Canada, the European Commission, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, China, France, United Arab Emirates, Sweden, Australia, Finland, and 

New Zealand. 

TSUNAMI ASSISTANCE: RESPONSE OF INDONESIAN GOVERNMENT

Question. How would you characterize the response of the Indonesian government, 

including the military, in providing relief in Aceh? 

Answer. Operating under extremely difficult circumstances, the Government of Indonesia (GOI) performed remarkably well during the initial emergency relief phase 

following the earthquake and tsunami on December 26. It acknowledged the enormity of the disaster and the fact that the scope of the disaster far outweighed the 

GOI’s own capacity to provide emergency relief and supplies. The decision on December 28 by the GOI to open up Aceh to foreign donors, NGOs, militaries and 

media was heartening, as this conflict zone was a ‘‘no go’’ area for foreigners up 

until this date. This allowed a rapid ramp-up of international assistance efforts that 

was made possible, largely, by the close cooperation with the Indonesian military 

(TNI). Belying widespread concerns that the TNI might restrict the flow of aid or 

limit access to victims, the TNI, by and large, pitched in with critical logistical and 

manpower support. With the arrival of U.S. military assets on January 1, this was 

all the more important. The TNI assisted in coordinating the landing of relief 

planes, U.S. helicopter sorties and relief supply convoys. In the ensuing weeks, the 

U.S. military and TNI worked closely in providing emergency relief and supplies 

that saved thousands of lives. 

Beyond the role played by the TNI, the GOI played an important regional leadership role in successfully organizing an international donors’ conference in Jakarta 

in mid-January, in cooperation with ASEAN and the United Nations. This helped 

bring global attention to the enormity of the disaster in not only Indonesia but 

throughout the region, and resulted in major pledges of assistance to all affected 

countries. As the relief phase ended, the GOI developed an overall blueprint for the 

rehabilitation and reconstruction of Aceh. The GOI also built temporary living quarters, which have provided shelter to some of the nearly 500,000 homeless survivors. 

With the recent establishment of the Aceh and Nias Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Agency, there is a new sense of urgency on the part of the GOI to provide better 

coordination of the recovery effort and to move more quickly in providing shelter, 

restoring livelihoods and re-establishing basic community services. 

IRAQ: CONTRACTS

Question. What percentage of contracts are security costs, and what is the average 

overhead cost per contract? 

How many contracts has USAID awarded to Iraqi entities, and will increasing 

these contracts have any impact on reducing security costs for activities in Iraq? 

Might it increase the pace of reconstruction? 

Answer. The total estimated security cost for USAID/Iraq contracts averages 

around 10 percent of the total contract value with an average overhead cost, including security, of roughly 37.4 percent. For example, Bechtel, USAID’s largest contractor in infrastructure, with a negotiated overhead cost of approximately 30 percent, estimates 7.1 percent for costs of security and insurance. 

USAID has not made any direct contracts with Iraqi entities. Through subcontracts, USAID has approximately 3,000 Iraqi partners, including Civil Society 

Organizations, Non-Governmental Organizations, grantees and subcontractors. For 

example, Bechtel, USAID’s largest contractor has made over 160 subcontract 

awards, valued at approximately $200 million, to Iraqi entities. 

Security costs are notably reduced when Iraqis are involved in implementing contracts. For example, CAP and DAI, which use many Iraqi firms, have average security costs of 6 percent versus the overall average of 10 percent in security costs for 
107 

USAID/Iraq contracts. Although involving Iraqi firms reduces security costs, it is 

not likely to increase the pace of reconstruction. USAID is presently disbursing $40 

million weekly, sufficient to complete the reconstruction work assigned to us by mid2006. 

IRAQ: VOCATIONAL TRAINING

Question. USAID is considering a change to the Iraq Vocational training and employment services contract. The committee has expressed support for using some of 

the aspects of the U.S. job corps program in the delivery of vocational training to 

Iraqis. 

As I am concerned that USAID will abandon the use of the U.S. Job Corps model 

in this contract, can you assure me that the agency will continue to utilize effective 

U.S. Job Corps approaches in the vocational training we are providing in Iraq? 

Answer. The U.S. Job Corps remains one of the world’s most successful programs 

with regard to vocational training. USAID fully expects that any proposal being submitted to implement a vocational training program in Iraq, particularly from an 

American firm, would include the U.S. Job Corps as a basis for the implementation 

structure. However, wholesale importation of the model as a panacea for Iraq’s vocational training needs would be insufficient as the post-conflict and socialist nature 

of Iraq’s economy requires a tailored, Iraq-specific solution. At this time, USAID is 

revising the statement of work to reflect the immediate needs for a trained workforce to allow Iraqis to successfully operate and maintain the public utility projects 

that will be turned over to them in late summer 2005. 

IRAQ: DEMOCRACY PROGRAMS

Question. What contracts and grants exist for democracy promotion in Iraq and 

how successful have these efforts been? 

How does USAID coordinate its democracy-building efforts in Iraq with the State 

Department and Iraqi Government, and does the Administration intend to continue 

to support the work of the International Republican Institute and the National 

Democratic Institute in Iraq? 

Answer. Grants and contracts grants exist for democracy promotion in Iraq with 

the following organizations: America’s Development Foundation (Contract), Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening (Grants for NDI, IRI, and 

IFES), Research Triangle Institute (Contract), ACDI/VOCA (Grant), CHF (Grant), 

Mercy Corps (Grant), Save the Children (Grant), IRD (Grant), and Voice for Humanity (Grant). 

Collectively, these programs have contributed significantly to the elections, building democratic institutions, raising public awareness and understanding of democratic principles and processes, encouraging civic participation across all ethnic, 

tribal, religious, gender, and regional lines, and assisting civilian victims of war. As 

a significant by-product of the project goals, they have directly and significantly increased employment opportunities and improved infrastructure. 

USAID/Iraq works hand-in-hand with Embassy Baghdad while USAID/Washington is actively engaged in the formal interagency process as well as regular communication with Department of State counterparts. USAID’s programs in the field 

are coordinated with the Embassy and the appropriate Iraqi government officials. 

The Administration highly values the work of IRI and NDI and expects to continue 

supporting their work in Iraq in fiscal year 2006, subject to the availability of funding. Our grantees under the Community Action Programs work almost exclusively 

with and through Iraqis, building their skills in citizen advocacy, collective decisionmaking, and other democratic processes while rebuilding their lives and neighborhoods. The local governance program implemented through Research Triangle Institute also works predominantly with and through Iraqis improving the capacity of 

government officials to deliver basic services and respond to the needs of their constituents. America’s Development Foundation works with Iraqi civil society organizations, journalists, and media outlets to enable them to effectively represent issuebased points of view. 

DEMOCRACY PROMOTION

Question. What specific plans does USAID have to ensure it keeps pace with the 

President’s agenda to promote freedom abroad, and why isn’t democracy its own 

‘‘pillar’’ within USAID? 

Answer. USAID has identified ‘‘building sustainable democracies’’ as one of the 

Agency’s four overarching goals. Currently, USAID manages democracy programs in 

over 80 countries. For over two decades USAID programs have contributed to the 
108 

rule of law, legitimate political processes, a robust civil society, and good governance. Our work includes democracy promotion to democracy building. For example, 

USAID is working with the Government of Iraq and Iraqi officials to build capacity 

in key government ministries that will undertake the task of governance in the new 

regime. A key element of U.S. assistance is to help Iraqis learn to make decisions 

at the grassroots level. Through its Community Action Program, the agency works 

with residents of neighborhoods to identify, prioritize, and meet critical community 

needs while utilizing democratic processes. USAID has committed over $129 million 

to date to fund 2,844 community projects. 

To keep pace with the President’s agenda, USAID is drafting a ‘‘democracy building’’ strategy which will be completed soon. It addresses the challenges of fragile 

and failing states, as well as recalcitrant states, and the linkages between governance and other development sectors and activities. The strategy will position USAID 

to ramp up its democracy programs. 

In addition to building a more robust Office of Democracy and Governance, 

USAID is training many new officers through the New Entry Professional, the 

International Development Intern, and the Presidential Management Fellow programs. The Agency currently has approximately 400 trained democracy and governance professionals, and continues to staff up. 

During the Agency’s 2002 reorganization, the Center was moved to the new Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA) and renamed 

the Office of Democracy and Governance. The location of the Office of Democracy 

and Governance in the DCHA Bureau assures that democracy and governance activities will not be stove-piped, but rather mainstreamed within the Agency’s critical 

programs. Over the course of fiscal year 2005, USAID will continue to strengthen 

our democracy programs and looks forward to working with the Committee to this 

end. 

DEMOCRACY DEFINITION

Question. What is USAID’s definition of a democracy program, and what is the 

rationale for the Agency’s preference to use large contractors instead of smaller, 

more specialized grantees in conducting these programs? 

Answer. The following definition of democracy and governance programs was 

agreed by USAID and the State Department: 

Democracy and governance programs are technical assistance and other supports 

to strengthen the capacity of reform-minded governments, non-governmental actors, 

and/or citizens, in order to develop and support democratic states and institutions 

that are responsive and accountable to citizens. They also include efforts in countries that are not reform-minded, to promote democratic transitions. Programs are 

organized around core concepts considered the key building blocks of democracy. Democracy programs promote the rule of law and human rights, transparent and fair 

elections coupled with a competitive political process, a free and independent media, 

stronger civil society and greater citizen participation in government, and governance structures that are efficient, responsive and accountable. 

USAID does not prefer to use large contractors instead of smaller, more specialized grantees in implementing democracy and governance programs. The Agency encourages all possible providers of goods and services to compete in the various acquisition and assistance processes which the pertinent federal laws and regulations require. Contracts are utilized when a very substantial degree of control and ongoing 

oversight of the activity is appropriate. This level of involvement is often required 

in sensitive efforts to reform governments or build democracy, but is inappropriate 

in working with grantees. However, USAID supports more specialized grantees extensively in its democracy programs. 

COORDINATION OF DEMOCRACY PROGRAMS

Question. How does USAID coordinate its democracy programs with the State Department and the National Endowment for Democracy? 

Answer. We coordinate at every level possible with the State Department. In the 

field, USAID works under the authority of the Ambassador, and the Mission Director reports to the Ambassador. In some areas, such as democracy and governance, 

there are often standing committees, led by the State Department, in which all relevant U.S. Government agencies in the country coordinate their activities (this may 

include the State Department, USAID, Department of Justice (FBI), Drug Enforcement Administration, and others). Indeed USAID feeds directly into the Mission 

Program and Planning process to ensure consistency and coordination at the country level. 
109 

In Washington, the relationship is extremely rich and complex, with networks in 

both regional and functional areas, as well as a variety of management channels. 

USAID’s Bureau for Policy and Program Coordination has the primary responsibility for linkages and coordination. The DCHA/DG office has additional separate, 

lower level linkages, particularly with the regional bureaus and the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) Office. One example 

of coordination with DRL is represented by the Agency’s regular service on technical 

review panels to evaluate proposals submitted in response to democracy-related 

RFAs issued by the State Department. In coordination with DRL, we are also beginning to work out a common budget format and improve common indicators of DG 

success. With the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff, we have been involved 

in developing and coordinating strategic planning operations. With the Bureau for 

International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL), USAID often works on 

security issues, local governance and other areas of DG activity, often implementing 

INL funding into DG programs. 

USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) implement complementary programs. The two agencies share information on a routine basis, both 

in Washington and in the field, concerning their respective activities. USAID receives and disseminates quarterly a list of all NED grants, so as to not duplicate 

work already being done by NED. Moreover, USAID is the primary support agency 

for the National Democratic Institute, International Republican Institute, and the 

American Center for International Labor Solidarity, which represent three of NED’s 

constituent institutes. 

SPENDING ON DEMOCRACY FUNDS

Question. How much did USAID spend on democracy programs in fiscal year 

2004, and what percentage of these funds went to contractors and to grantees? 

Answer. USAID allocated $1,380,655,000 for democracy programs and activities in 

fiscal year 2004, inclusive of all appropriations and transfers channeled through 

USAID. Specifically within the Development Assistance account, USAID used approximately $148,103,000 for democracy and governance programs. 

During fiscal year 2004, approximately $1.04 billion were put into new or existing 

grants and contracts related to democracy and governance. Of this, $650.16 million 

or 62 percent went into grants. The remaining $393.21 million or 38 percent went 

into contracts. The proportion going into grants increases to 67 percent when Iraq 

and Afghanistan are removed from the calculation. In Iraq and Afghanistan, democracy grants accounted for 45 percent and 84 percent respectively. 

DEMOCRACY CONTRACTS

Question. Please provide a detailed listing of all democracy contracts awarded in 

fiscal year 2004 and 2005 on a country-by-country basis, including the name of contractor, the amount awarded, and a brief summary of contract objectives. 

Answer. USAID is currently disaggregating its fiscal year 2004 democracy and 

governance programs to provide this information. This work will be completed shortly. 

AVIAN FLU/HIV/AIDS

Question. Should the Avian influenza prove pandemic, what is the anticipated 

health impact on the HIV/AIDS population in Asia? 

Answer. The virus that causes Avian influenza, called H5N1, has newly emerged 

and even the healthiest humans have little or no immunity to it. Current mortality 

rates from H5N1 infection exceed 60 percent. Nearly all of those who have died from 

Avian influenza to-date have been young and in general good health. Should this 

influenza prove pandemic, all people would be at risk. The Central Intelligence 

Agency estimates the death toll to be as great as 180 million people during the first 

nine months of the outbreak. While there have been no specific studies evaluating 

the impact of H5NI infection on HIV/AIDS populations, it is assumed that diminished immuno-competency will contribute to even greater vulnerability to infection 

and death. 

PROGRAMS IN THAILAND REGIONAL OFFICE

Question. Please provide a summary of all programs (including a brief description 

of activities and funding amounts) that USAID’s regional office in Thailand manages. 

Answer. Activities managed by RDM/A fall under four strategic objectives—all 

funding is fiscal year 2005 appropriations unless otherwise stated: 
110 

Strategic Objective—Vulnerable Populations in the Region Assisted and Other Special Foreign Policy Interests 

—Reduce Trafficking in Persons ($400,000 DA).—Emphasizes stronger ties among 

countries in the region on trafficking issues and cross border initiatives including prosecution, protection and prevention as well as improved data collection, 

capacity building and standardization of research and monitoring and evaluation tools. —Protect Human Rights and Equal Access to Justice ($700,000 CSH; $1,070,000 

CSH Prior Year; $300,000 DA).—Strengthening the legal framework to protect 

the rights of people with disabilities (PWD), including enforcement of Barrierfree Access Codes and Standards in construction, implementation of national action plans on accessibility to public transportation and reviewing and enforcing 

of governmental standards on employment of PWDs, along with helping PWDs 

to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to find employment. —Build Health System Capacity ($500,000 CSH; $500,000 CSH Prior Year; 

$450,000 DA).—Strengthen institutional structures; shape direction of prosthetic and orthotic rehabilitation; support development of NGO laws to raise 

awareness of the role of civil society in Vietnam; and, support inclusive education for the disabled. —Establish and Ensure Media Freedom and Freedom of Information (Burma) 

($4,500,000 ESF; $2,366,000 ESF Prior Year).—USAID will fund targeted programs at the U.S. Embassy’s American Center; support training and advocacy 

for a transition to a democratic government by preparing the Burmese population (inside and on the Thai border) to participate in a free and democratic 

society. The State Department-managed portion of this program supports information and media activities and institution building programs. —Health and Education along the Thai-Burma Border (Burma) ($3,000,000 ESF; 

$6,057,000 ESF Prior Year).—Humanitarian assistance to refugees along the 

Thai/Burma border will continue to improve access to primary health care, 

maintain nutrition and food security for refugees and provide access to health 

care for Burmese in Thailand residing outside of refugee camps. A recently competed request for proposal (RFA) will further define focus areas. Also included 

is the development of a viable and sustainable education system recognized in 

and transferable to Burma when refugees return to their homeland. Activities 

include training and capacity building for teachers, principals and administrators; curriculum development; and special education. —Prevent and Control Infectious Diseases of Major Importance (Burma) ($436,000 

ESF; $1,000,000 ESF Prior Year).—Continuance of the regional HIV/AIDS activities described below to include Burma. The malaria and infectious diseases 

program launched in fiscal year 2003 along the Thai-Burma border will continue. The RFA mentioned above will determine focus areas. 

—Protect and Increase the Assets and Livelihoods of the Poor during Periods of 

Stress ($4,216,000 ESF; $110,000 ESF Prior Year).—In fiscal year 2004, USAID 

supported ethnic Tibetan communities in China. Fiscal year 2005 funds will be 

used to continue these programs as well as an existing agreement with The 

Bridge Fund (TBF). The Sustainable Tibetan Communities project is implemented in the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) and in other Tibetan areas outside the TAR. 

Strategic Objective—Improved Regional Governance and Economic Reform 

—Improve Economic Policy and Governance ($6,000,000 DA).—A grant or cooperative agreement will be competed to implement a regional program that will improve public and private sector governance; improve transparency and accountability; development public policy reforms consistent with civil society advocacy, 

judicial reforms, advancement of democratic processes and counterterrorism 

measures such as anti-money laundering practices; and, encourage progress toward implementation of free trade agreements and the promotion of open political and economic systems. This activity will include promotion of further trade 

and investment reforms needed to meet Vietnamese BTA commitments and requirements for WTO accession. 

—Improve Economic Policy and Governance ($744,000 ESF).—Technical assistance and training will support USG objectives with ASEAN such as enhancing 

administrative and implementation capacity of the secretariat and building regional cooperation on transnational areas such as terrorism, human trafficking, 

narcotics and HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases. 

—Improve Community-Based Reconciliation Efforts ($992,000 ESF).—Working 

closely with the Embassy in Bangkok, USAID will identify measure and activities to promote reconciliation and peace in Burma and Southern Thailand 
111 

through activities such as primary education, migrant rights, democracy and 

press freedom. 

Strategic Objective—Improved Regional Environmental Conditions 

—Improve Access to Clean Water and Sanitation ($4,000,000 DA).—Provide technical assistance and training to Asian NGOs and consumer groups to increase 

awareness and advocacy for expanded water access through regional grants programs, working with the private sector and public awareness campaigns. 

Planned activities include linking Asian water providers with U.S. utilities to 

assist in the development of financial plans for full-cost recovery; improving operating performance; identifying technologies to expand water and sanitation 

access; and working with local and national governments to improve the policy 

framework for tariff reform, land tenure and regulations for inter-governmental 

fiscal transfers and other enabling conditions. 

—Reduce, Prevent and Mitigate Pollution ($1,000,000 DA).—Activities at the city, 

national and regional levels will improve urban air quality while responding to 

the Presidential Initiative on Global Climate Change. Training and technical assistance to local governments will strengthen capacity to manage air quality 

through monitoring, development of data bases and emissions inventories, the 

use of air quality planning tools and identification and assessment of improvements. 

—Improve Sustainable Management of Natural Resources and Biodiversity Conservation ($3,000,000 DA).—RDM/A is assuming responsibility for programs 

previously managed by the East Asia and Pacific Environmental Initiative for 

forest, coastal and marine resources management and biodiversity. 

Strategic Objective—Improved Effective Regional Response to HIV/AIDS and Infectious Diseases 

—Reduce Transmission and Impact of HIV/AIDS ($13,343,000 CSH; $193,000 

CSH Prior Year).—Through the Greater Mekong HIV/AIDS program, USAID is 

supporting efforts and collaborative partnerships to rapidly scale-up access to 

packaged prevention, care, support and treatment interventions that effectively 

reach most-at-risk populations in both country-specific and region-wide contexts. Quality is maintained through south-to-south exchanges and centers of 

excellence that foster institutional capacity building in remote areas currently 

lacking quality health care service providers. Activities ensure the persons living with HIV/AIDS have a role in planning AIDS programs. 

—Prevent and Control Infectious Diseases of Major Importance ($4,108,000 CSH; 

$1,000,000 CSH Prior Year).—Activities focus on TB, malaria, surveillance, infectious disease control in migrants and host communities on the Tai-Burmese 

border and control and prevention of infectious diseases of local importance by 

strengthening and expansion of treatment strategies; monitoring for multi-drug 

resistant TB; enhancing collaboration between HIV and TB programs and developing a TB diagnostic algorithm; surveillance for anti-malarial drug resistance; 

increased emphasis on drug quality surveillance, adherence and drug use assessments; enhanced regional coordination efforts; and capacity building. Given 

the increasing impact of avian influenza in the region, USAID will continue to 

act in concert with other U.S. Government agencies and international organizations to prevent the spread of the disease and increase the ability of affected 

countries to manage avian flu outbreaks. 

OVERSEAS CONFERENCE EXPENDITURES

Question. How much does USAID spend on travel to overseas conferences and 

meetings? 

Answer. The Agency does not separately account for travel to overseas conferences 

and meetings. The best readily available proxy is spending under Object Class Code 

(OCC) 210330, which covers travel for conferences, seminars, meetings, and retreats. In fiscal year 2004, the Agency obligated $8.9 million under this OCC. Although this provides a general idea of spending on conferences and meetings, the 

data has several limitations, including that it covers both overseas and domestic 

travel. 

In particular, the data includes spending on seminars and retreats, in addition 

to conferences and meetings, and for USAID-hosted events, not simply travel and 

attendance at outside conferences. The data also may exclude spending on conferences and meetings that may be classified under other object class codes, such 

as site visits, particularly if the conference or meeting was completed in conjunction 

with a site visit. 
112 

To maximize the effectiveness of available funding, the Agency has implemented 

a new policy limiting domestic and overseas travel from Washington. Any travel 

from Washington, whether program or OE funded, by a group of more than three 

staff members, including direct- and non-direct-hire staff, must be approved in writing by the Chief of Staff. 

OVERHEAD RATE

Question. What is the overhead rate at USAID (including program funds used to 

cover shortfalls in operating expenses)? 

Answer. The Agency has done a significant amount of work on the use of Operating Expense (OE) and program funds for administrative expenses overseas. Based 

on detailed analyses, the Agency established an incremental overseas administrative 

rate of 7 percent for unbudgeted program increases. In other words, a $100 million 

increase in an appropriation, supplemental, or agency transfer for overseas programs would require $7 million in additional OE, or program funds for administrative purposes, for program management. The incremental rate reflects only variable 

costs. 

The analyses also showed the total overseas administrative rate is 13 percent. 

This is the ratio of total administrative costs (both OE and program funded) to program dollars actually used to deliver assistance. The difference between these two 

rates is that the total rate includes both variable and fixed costs. 

PROCUREMENT IMPROVEMENTS

Question. What plans does USAID have to improve its procurement process to 

make it more transparent and accessible to new organizations? 

Answer. The Office of Acquisition and Assistance (OAA) is working on the following improvements in transparency and accessibility to new organizations. 

Changes in internal USAID procurement practices 

—Class waiver to permit limited competition at the discretion of the Grants Officer to organizations that have received less than $500,000 in USAID grant financing within the last five fiscal years. 

—Education programs to sensitize Contracting Technical Officers (CTOs) to understand success of small businesses. 

—Workshop by the Small Business Association to provide information on their 

programs. 

—Small businesses’ forum in Ronald Reagan Building for USAID CTOs to become 

familiar with the technical expertise and capabilities of small businesses. 

—Quarterly outreach conferences conducted by the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization. 

—Improvement to the external website to make it user friendly. 

Promotion of small businesses to large contractor firms 

—Creation of a mentor prote ́ge ́ program to motivate and encourage large business 

prime contractor firms to provide mutually beneficial developmental assistance 

to small businesses. 

—Establishment of small business targets within prime contracts with corresponding award for meeting goals. 

—Set aside contracts within competitions for small businesses to compete 

amongst each other. 

AFGHANISTAN: IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVE LIVELIHOODS PROGRAMS

Question. How successful are alternative development programs in Afghanistan, 

and what is your assessment of poppy eradication efforts to date? 

Answer. Implementing an effective alternative development program in Afghanistan is challenging, as there continue to be serious security constraints. Nonetheless, programs are showing success. For example, in Nangarhar, 14,000 rural residents were employed on a daily basis, earning over $1.8 million in salaries. In 

Helmand, over 14,000 laborers were employed on a daily basis earning a total of 

over $4.27 million. These successes in employment generation are significant because lessons from other countries show that providing alternative legitimate 

sources of income is a key component of an effective counter narcotics strategy. 

In addition, longer-term comprehensive provincial economic development programs, which are being formulated in collaboration with the local administrations 

in Nangarhar, Laghman, Helmand, Kandahar, and Badakshan provinces, show 

promise for successful alternative development. Implementation of these programs 

is just beginning and covers a wide range of activities including rural infrastructure, 
113 

agricultural development, agri-business and financial services. This is a long term 

effort and we are in the early stages. 

Security impact on Alternative Livelihoods 

—Faced with multiple security threats and the death of several staff, the contractor implementing USAID’s Alternative Livelihoods program in Helmand 

temporarily suspended work on May 19. Next week, the contractor plans to 

start sending out armed convoys to pay Afghan farmers for work done before 

the stoppage. The contractor is putting in place an enhanced security package 

and plans to start work again by July 1. 

—In addition, the contractor implementing the Alternative Livelihoods program 

in Nangarhar slowed down activities due to credible security threats. 

—Suspension of both these programs resulted in job loss for over 26,000 Afghans 

employed through the Alternative Livelihoods program. 

Eradication 

—State/INL manages poppy eradication efforts and can respond to this question. 

AFGHANISTAN: COORDINATION WITH AFGHAN GOVERNMENT

Question. How does USAID coordinate its alternative development programs with 

the Afghan Government? 

Answer. USAID coordinates its alternative development program with all levels 

of the Afghan Government—national, provincial, district, and village. At the national level, USAID participates in a working group of several Afghan Government 

Ministries, donors and NGOs that is developing a framework that will be used by 

the Government to plan and manage development activities. At the provincial level, 

alternative development plans are being developed by USAID contractors in consultation with provincial authorities, who must approve them. Further, USAID 

plans to provide programs to build the management capacity of both provincial and 

district authorities. Finally, at the village level, local authorities are widely consulted by USAID for its current cash-for-work activities in order to ensure that all 

projects enjoy popular support and meet local needs. 

AFGHANISTAN: VOICE FOR HUMANITY

Question. Does USAID intend to continue to support Voice for Humanity’s civic 

education programs in Afghanistan at the $7 million level recommended in the Senate report accompanying the emergency supplemental bill? 

Answer. Pursuant to the supplemental, USAID notified Congress in the Sec. 2104 

financial report, of our intent to award $3 million in fiscal year 2005 supplemental 

funds to Voice for Humanity (VFH) in anticipation of upcoming Afghan parliamentary elections. The financial plan, which serves as notification, was fully cleared by 

Congress in mid-July, and we anticipate the award to VFH will be made shortly. 

BURMA: COORDINATION OF SUPPORT

Question. How does USAID coordinate its programs to support Burmese refugees 

and ‘‘economic migrants’’ with the State Department? 

Answer. USAID currently administers $4 million in fiscal year 2005 ESF funds 

to assist Burmese economic migrants and refugees along the Thai Burma border as 

directed by the fiscal year 2005 Appropriations Bill. The State Department’s Bureau 

of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) administers approximately $3.9 million in fiscal year 2005 ESF to assist Burmese refugees residing in camps in Thailand and for democracy and media activities. As such, extensive coordination between USAID and the State Department is critical to the success of the overall 

Burma program. The Regional Development Mission/Asia (RDM/A) and USAID/ 

Washington have consistently engaged the State Department in all matters regarding Burma ESF funds programming and are committed to continuing this practice. 

For example, the conceptual framework and strategic approach to the Request for 

Applications (RFA) for the Burma Border Program, was developed through extensive discussions between RDM/A and the Embassy in Bangkok, including PRM, on 

a regional level. The RFA concept was then briefed to the entire Embassy, including 

Ambassador Johnson, in October 2004 after a joint assessment visit by EAP, DRL 

and USAID. During the procurement process, USAID invited PRM to participate directly in the technical review and sent both a regional and a Washington representative to the TEC. Finally, USAID’s plan to issue the RFA document was duly notified in the fiscal year 2006 Congressional Budget Submission which was cleared 

through State. 
114 

BURMA: COORDINATION WITH STATE

Question. Is it USAID’s understanding that the State Department is the lead organization in these efforts? 

Answer. USAID receives policy guidance from the State Department and U.S. Embassies abroad in the implementation of all ESF funding. Such is the case for the 

implementation of programs inside and along the Thai/Burma border. USAID coordinates closely and collaborates with the U.S. Embassy in Bangkok, the U.S. Embassy in Burma and the State Department. USAID has and will continue to diligently implement Burma programs in accordance with this guidance. 

In the field, USAID’s Regional Development Mission/Asia (RDM/A) has a team of 

six staff members who visit the programs on a regular basis. Functions performed 

include development, oversight, and implementation of individual activities. The 

PRM officer at the Embassy has expressed confidence and appreciation for the attention that USAID’s RDM/A staff is able to devote to oversight of the Burma/Thai 

border programs. 

In Washington, as you are aware, with the development of a joint Strategic Planning Framework, State and USAID have formed a Joint Policy Council (JPC) to ensure foreign policy goals and development assistance programs are fully aligned to 

achieve U.S. Government priorities. USAID’s Asia Near East Bureau and corresponding State Department offices participate at the working level in the East 

Asia and Pacific Policy Group which oversees Burma program operations and reports to the JPC. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT

FOOD AID: PURCHASING AND DISRTIBUTION

Question. Under the administration’s proposal to transfer $300 million from the 

Public Law 480 Title II account to the USAID International Disaster and Famine 

Assistance account, how would USAID purchase and distribute the commodities? 

Please provide an example of how you would operate the program. 

Answer. The USAID Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance Office of Food for Peace would continue to have the responsibility to manage 

USAID food aid programs whether with Public Law 480 Title II commodities or 

IDFA funds. We plan to work through Private Voluntary Organizations and the 

World Food Program (WFP) to purchase, transport, store and distribute the food assistance. Many of these organizations have been procuring locally for a number of 

years and are, therefore, experienced in all aspects of conducting local purchases 

and supportive of the concept of purchasing food locally in appropriate circumstances. 

Examples 

Sudan 

—In 2001, OFDA conducted a major local food purchase to meet needs in South 

Sudan. The budget of $1,000,000 programmed through Norwegian People’s Aid 

was used to purchase 1,275 metric tons of food including sorghum and maize. 

The commodities were purchased in Western Equatoria and transported by land 

and air to food deficit areas in Bahr el Ghazel such as Gogrial County and Raja. 

At that time Raja had experienced fighting between the SPLA and GOS and 

this food was the first relief to reach the town. 

Iraq 

—For fiscal year 2003, USAID contributed $245 million to WFP to shore up the 

ongoing universal ration system in Iraq reaching 27 million people. USAID supported the regional procurement of 330,000 metric tons of mainly food items 

such as bulk wheat, wheat flour, rice, pulses, sugar, tea, vegetable oil, salt, and 

weaning cereals. Items were procured from places such as Turkey, Eastern Europe, Jordan, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Vietnam and the Gulf States and 

transported by both land and sea to reach the distribution points within Iraq. 

FOOD AID: IMPROVING RESPONSIVENESS

Question. I understand the need to get commodities to the country as soon as possible in emergency situations. However, emergency food aid, by definition, is sent 

to countries that are not functioning because of some type of natural catastrophe, 

civil war, or both. In other words, getting commodities to the port may be the easy 
115 

part while getting them inland for distribution is the challenge. How would the administration’s proposal improve on the program currently in place? 

Answer. The Administration’s proposal is aimed exactly at improving our current 

program by enabling limited local purchase of food commodities. Emergencies have 

increased in complexity and magnitude, and USAID has not always been able to respond in the most effective manner to these emergency food crises. This problem has 

been exacerbated by pipeline breaks in the Food for Peace program. 

Given the widely differing conditions faced in the countries where we provide food 

aid, we must have the flexibility to respond quickly and appropriately. In many 

emergency situations, time is a critical factor and cash is necessary for making local 

purchases so that needs are met in time to prevent mortality rates exceeding those 

that are normal in the emergency-affected area. The authority to purchase food locally in limited circumstances would enable the Agency to respond more effectively 

to emergency situations. 

VALUE-ADDED COMMODITIES

Question. The Congress has been very supportive of the use of U.S. value-added 

commodities in the Food for Peace program to assist vulnerable people in developing 

countries. In the farm bill we recognized the need to improve the quality of food 

aid products to meet the needs of recipients and to maintain the reputation of U.S. 

food products overseas. We have been hearing about ongoing problems with cornsoy-blend being rejected by recipients due to quality problems, which suggests that 

more needs to be done. How is USAID assisting USDA in addressing these issues? 

Answer. Of the 2 to 3 million metric tons of U.S. food provided annually under 

Public Law 480 Title II, the majority of these products are high quality value added 

commodities. Whether wheat flour, corn soy blend, fortified cornmeal, bagged pulses, 

bagged rice, or fortified vegetable oil, these commodities have proven highly effective 

in restoring health, reducing suffering, and saving lives. By and large, these nutritious products are well received by our partners and end beneficiaries. Occasionally, 

complaints or concerns are raised by end beneficiaries or partners’ staff. Each and 

every complaint is thoroughly investigated by USDA with our assistance. Specifically, our strong field presence helps ensure that the right information regarding 

the complaint is gathered by our implementing partners’ staff so that USDA can investigate, in collaboration with USAID, the likely causes and possible solutions. If 

changes in the specifications for either commodities or packaging are warranted, we 

jointly and collaboratively work on making those necessary changes with USDA taking the lead on issuing the proper notices to the trade and invitations for award 

of quality product. 

Regarding corn soy blend (CSB), there have been sporadic reports over the years 

of CSB being clumpy, stale, or even turning an undesirable color when cooked. Like 

all complaints relating to quality, we are constantly working with USDA on identifying the extent of such problems, so USDA can find the causes and the ways to 

correct and improve the quality of the product. 

Question. The President’s budget would reduce Food for Peace funding by $300 

million and increase USAID’s International Disaster and Famine Assistance (IDFA) 

by the same amount. Under this proposal, USAID would create a new, cash-based 

food aid program under foreign-grown and processed commodities could be purchased for shipment from foreign ports on foreign-flag vessels. Under Food for 

Peace, Title II of Public Law 480, USAID has been providing emergency food assistance for decades. Why is a new cash-based program needed now? 

Answer. Emergencies have increased in complexity and magnitude and USAID 

has not always been able to respond in the most effective manner to these emergency food crises. This problem has been exacerbated by the limited resources available for programming, and consequently, FFP too often has been faced with pipeline 

breaks. Given the widely differing conditions faced in the countries where we provide food aid, we must have the flexibility to respond quickly and appropriately. In 

many emergency situations, time is a critical factor and cash is necessary for making local purchases so that needs are met in time to prevent mortality rates exceeding those that are normal in the emergency-affected area. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

BUDGET

Question. Once again, the President proposes to cut core USAID programs. Even 

after taking into account the transfer of funds from the Development Assistance ac-
116 

count to the Transition Initiatives account, there is still a cut of $70 million for Development Assistance. 

How do you defend cuts in these Development Assistance (DA) Programs? 

Answer. The President has requested a $49 million increase from his fiscal year 

2005 DA request—$1.329 billion in fiscal year 2005 versus $1.378 billion in fiscal 

year 2006—for the combined DA and the expanded portion of the Transition Initiatives (TI) accounts. Under the President’s budget, the DA fiscal year 2005 level 

should be compared with the combined DA-TI fiscal year 2006 request level. 

PERCEIVED CUTS IN EXISTING FOREIGN AID PROGRAMS

Question. The President assured us that funding for the Millennium Challenge 

Corporation (MCC) would not result in cuts in existing foreign aid programs. Isn’t 

that what is happening? Do you foresee cuts in USAID assistance to countries that 

qualify for MCC assistance? 

Answer. USAID does not expect to reduce its funding levels in MCC compact 

countries. The purpose and rationale for MCC is to reward good performers and 

offer them additional incentive and assistance to move forward in meeting their development objectives. The MCC compact is meant to be additive to the USAID program. 

USAID policy is to initiate a review of USAID programs during the annual budget 

review for countries that have signed an MCC compact. During the review, USAID 

will discuss how compacts may affect the country program management and resource request, including operating expenses and staff. This review does not necessarily trigger a change in funding for the MCC compact country. It would be a 

great disincentive to countries if it were perceived that signing an MCC compact implied giving up its USAID program. USAID is coordinating closely with MCC to ensure there is no duplication of effort. 

INFECTIOUS DISEASE FUNDING

Question. The President’s budget would cut USAID’s programs to combat TB, malaria, and other infectious diseases from $200 million in fiscal year 2005 to $141 

million in fiscal year 2006. 

How can that possibly be a good idea? 

Let me give you one example of why it makes no sense. There are six neglected 

diseases which cause severe illness and disfigurement among millions of people in 

tropical countries, particularly in Africa. They are not easy to pronounce and most 

Americans have never heard of most of them: Schistosomiasis; Lymphatic filariasis 

(otherwise known as Elephantiasis), Onchocerciasis (otherwise known as River 

Blindness); Intestinal parasites; Trachoma; and Leprosy. 

To combat all of these diseases combined, USAID spends only a few million dollars, yet there are low cost and effective drugs for treating and in some cases preventing or even eliminating them. 

Shouldn’t we be increasing funding to combat infectious diseases, rather than cutting it? Would you support a special initiative in the 2007 budget to mount a serious 

effort to combat these neglected diseases? 

Answer. There are many competing priorities for funding. Unfortunately, the 

budget request reflects a number of very difficult and painful choices. For infectious 

diseases, we have tried to achieve the best balance within our budget parameters 

between the critically important investments that need to be made in TB and malaria and the smaller, yet critically important funding for other diseases. 

The budget request for fiscal year 2007 is still being developed. We will continue 

to place priority on infectious diseases that pose the greatest threat to lives and 

economies in developing countries. These include HIV/AIDS, malaria, TB, and avian 

influenza. 

FUTURE BUDGET

Question. A recent New York Times article said that the World Bank, IMF, British Prime Minister Blair, and others have all called for a doubling of aid for the 

poorest countries. In fact, I’m told that just this week the European countries 

pledged to increase their contributions by a total of several tens of billions of dollars 

by the year 2010. 

The United States has not taken a position. Our aid to rebuild Iraq, with a population of 25 million, is more than we give in foreign aid to 2 billion people living 

in poverty in the rest of the world. 

The amount of aid we give to the world’s poorest countries is still a miniscule percentage of our gross national income. 
117 

Do you see this changing, or are we in for more incremental increases in this 

budget, robbing Peter to pay Paul, and no change in the big picture? 

Are you aware of any plans by the Administration to increase our foreign aid significantly in response to the U.N.’s millennium goals? 

Answer. U.S. assistance to the poorest countries is increasing, and the President’s 

fiscal year 2006 budget request for overall development assistance is almost double 

the fiscal year 2000 level. The new accounts for the Global HIV/AIDS Initiative and 

the Millennium Challenge Account are a significant part of this increase. The fiscal 

year 2006 budget request reflects the President’s recognition that development assistance makes a vital contribution to enhancing U.S. national security. These two 

recently added accounts deal, in the first case, with the most serious global health 

issue of this millennium, and in the second case, with countries that rule justly, invest in their people, and encourage economic freedom. 

From the beginning of this Administration, the President has made known his 

commitment to providing additional international assistance. To underline this commitment, the President has launched several new initiatives that support the goals 

of the U.N.’s Millennium Declaration. 

USE OF LARGE CONTRACTORS

Question. I am concerned about USAID’s increasing use of large contractors. Re- cently we heard about a $75 million contract to do democracy work in Indonesia 

with a contractor that as far as I know doesn’t have a lot of expertise in this type 

of work or in that part of the world. 

Yet qualified, small organizations that know the country and specialize in this 

work cannot compete unless they can find a way to subcontract, which isn’t always 

possible or desirable. I hear these complaints all the time. Do you see this favoritism 

towards big contracts continuing? Are you doing anything to change it? 

Should we set aside funds for grants and cooperative agreements to qualified 

small organizations so they don’t get shut out? 

Answer. With significantly reduced workforce levels in the acquisition and assistance workforce and a doubling of our operating budget, USAID along with other 

USG agencies have increased its use of task orders placed against indefinite quantity contracts (IQCs). 

Under the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act enacted by Congress in 1995, the 

ability of agencies to award multiple IQCs was expanded, and the procedure to provide a fair opportunity selection process for subsequent task order awards was further defined. 

Realizing that large businesses have won a significant amount of USAID IQC 

awards, USAID has aggressively sought to compete new IQC awards that include 

set-aside awards for small busineses. To further address this matter, we require 

large businesses to subcontract a percentage of their work to small businesses. For 

example, in USAID’s $1.8 billion solicitation for infrastructure support for Iraq, 

USAID included a provision that provided an incentive fee, which was available to 

firms that proposed expanded use of small businesses. We evaluate the efforts and 

commitment to execution of the subcontracting plans of prime contractors in consideration of future awards. 

With regard to sets asides for grants and cooperative agreements, USAID’s Office 

of Private Voluntary Cooperation has a program in place that reserves funding for 

designated organizations, which has been favorably viewed in the Private Voluntary 

Organization community. 

OFFICE OF PRIVATE VOLUNTARY COOPERATION

Question. I have heard that USAID may be planning to sharply scale back funding for its Office of Private and Voluntary Cooperation, which helps to build the capacity of United States and local non-governmental organizations and cooperatives. 

Is this true? 

Given the role these organizations play in implementing foreign aid programs, 

and the difficulty they have meeting USAID audit requirements and competing with 

large contractors, shouldn’t we increase support for this Office? 

Answer. Agency priorities are constantly being reviewed. Currently, increased 

focus is being placed on post-conflict stabilization with less emphasis on cross-sector 

NGO capacity-building programs. The Matching Grant Capacity Building Program, 

which supported PVO and local NGO organizational development for many years, 

issued its last request for applications in 2002, and the last request for applications 

for the NGO Sector Strengthening Program was issued in 2003. 

Attention to organizational capacity building is certainly important, especially for 

local NGOs. Newer and more nascent organizations are offering orientation sessions 
118 

at the PVC Office’s annual conferences on such matters as procurement, audits, and 

reporting. 

OFFICE OF ENERGY AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Question. Each year, we recommend in the neighborhood of $15 million for the 

Office of Energy and Information Technology, and each year USAID funds it at 

about half that. Given the importance of energy, particularly renewable energy, in 

poor countries where the cost of fossil fuels is prohibitive, why aren’t we doing 

more? 

Answer. We are doing more in fiscal year 2005 to increase access to energy in developing countries. USAID reported to Congress in April that Agency-wide spending 

on energy in fiscal year 2005 is expected to exceed $100,000,000 to ‘‘promote and 

deploy energy conservation, energy efficiency, and renewable and clean energy technologies,’’ and reach nearly $104,000,000. This amount includes energy funding for 

the Office of Energy and Technology and is more than $15,000,000 above what 

USAID originally estimated it would invest in energy in fiscal year 2005 ($83.5 million). 

The vast majority of this funding is programmed by USAID missions in the field 

where the needs for and impact of USAID programs can be monitored most effectively. While the missions implement programs that increase access of developing 

countries to clean, efficient, renewable energy, the role of the Office of Energy and 

Information Technology, as a central technical office in Washington, is to support 

their design and implementation, and to provide technical leadership in how to best 

increase access of developing countries to clean efficient energy. 

In fiscal year 2005, the Bureau for Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade 

(EGAT) allotted $12 million to the Office of Energy and Information Technology, of 

which the largest apportionment by far, $8.5 million, is to provide such technical 

support to USAID field missions. When added to funds apportioned to EGAT’s Climate Change team and funding in other bureaus for related energy activities, the 

central funding for energy totals $10.7 million, or about 10 percent of expected fiscal 

year 2005 energy spending worldwide. 

Note.—The Office of Energy and Information Technology was renamed the Office 

of Infrastructure and Engineering on June 16, 2005 to reflect the addition of an engineering services team. 

VALUE-ADDED COMMODITIES

Question. The Congress has been very supportive of the use of U.S. value-added 

commodities in the Food for Peace program to assist vulnerable people in developing 

countries. In the farm bill we recognized the need to improve the quality of food 

aid products to meet the needs of recipients and to maintain the reputation of U.S. 

food products overseas. We have been hearing about ongoing problems with cornsoy-blend being rejected by recipients due to quality problems, which suggests that 

more needs to be done. How is USAID assisting USDA in addressing these issues? 

Answer. Of the 2 to 3 million metric tons of U.S. food provided annually under 

Public Law 480 Title II, the majority of these products are high quality value added 

commodities. Whether wheat flour, corn soy blend, fortified cornmeal, bagged pulses, 

bagged rice, or fortified vegetable oil, these commodities have proven highly effective 

in restoring health, reducing suffering, and saving lives. By and large, these nutritious products are well received by our partners and end beneficiaries. Occasionally, 

complaints or concerns are raised by end beneficiaries or partners’ staff. Each and 

every complaint is thoroughly investigated by USDA with our assistance. Specifically, our strong field presence helps ensure that the right information regarding 

the complaint is gathered by our implementing partners’ staff so that USDA can investigate, in collaboration with USAID, the likely causes and possible solutions. If 

changes in the specifications for either commodities or packaging are warranted, we 

jointly and collaboratively work on making those necessary changes with USDA taking the lead on issuing the proper notices to the trade and invitations for award 

of quality product. 

Regarding corn soy blend (CSB), there have been sporadic reports over the years 

of CSB being clumpy, stale, or even turning an undesirable color when cooked. Like 

all complaints relating to quality, we are constantly working with USDA on identifying the extent of such problems, so USDA can find the causes and the ways to 

correct and improve the quality of the product. 
119 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

ADOPTION AND ORPHANS AND VULNERABLE CHILDREN (OVC)

Question. I have read a copy of your recent publication, Children on the Brink, 

published in 2000, which details the looming international crisis caused by the increasing number of orphans. According to your own report, the number of orphans 

is expected to reach 40 to 50 million in just a few short years. As you point out, 

the largest contributing factor to this phenomena is AIDS. According to your figures, 

‘‘In 1990, AIDS accounted for just 16.4 percent of parental deaths leading to 

orphaning. By 2010, that number will rise to 68.4 percent.’’ 

These numbers are shocking. But what is more shocking to me is that neither 

your plan for addressing the world’s AIDS crisis, nor your plan for addressing children on the brink, include efforts to promote permanency through adoption. Can you 

explain to me why? 

Answer. As part of President Bush’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, USAID supports a range of activities aimed at a holistic approach to building capacity and 

strengthening communities to meet the needs of orphans and vulnerable children 

affected by AIDS. 

Following the death of a parent, our priority is to enable family members to provide the first line of protection for orphaned children. USAID seeks to strengthen 

family members’ ability to provide vital care and support by: training caregivers, increasing access to education, promoting the use of time and labor-saving technologies, and providing training and support in income-generation and micro-finance. If a family member is not available, USAID works to mobilize and strengthen 

community-based responses in addition to working with governments to develop appropriate policies and essential services to care for these children. 

While our primary objective is to serve children within their communities, we recognize that may not always be possible. USAID implements programs to create special protection and care measures for children, including broad-level advocacy for 

legal protection. Where possible, we work with host country governments to 

strengthen social safety nets, including local adoption, where supported and allowable in national policy. 

USAID’S RECORD OF SUCCESS IN FRAGILE STATES

Question. You have already alluded to the major achievement in Afghanistan and 

Iraq by USAID. While your work in the Sudan is just beginning, areas which 

USAID does have a record of contribution are in Haiti and Ethiopia. Over the last 

several years the U.S. Government, through USAID, has been the largest donor of 

foreign assistance to Haiti ($810 million from 1993–2005). Also, USAID has contributed significant amounts of financial and human capital in an effort to address the 

severe shortages and issues related to the Ethiopian/Eritrean war. 

What is your record of success in other ‘‘fragile states’’ around the world that 

aren’t garnering the exposure of Iraq and Afghanistan? 

Answer. Since its inception, USAID has worked in fragile states and has been a 

leader in humanitarian and post-conflict response. USAID has drawn from the lessons of this experience to innovate programmatically and speed the transition from 

relief to development. The overall level of assistance to fragile states has increased 

since the end of the cold war to almost one-fifth of USAID’s overall resources in 

2003, excluding Iraq. 

USAID’s ‘‘Fragile States Strategy,’’ approved in January 2005, recognizes that 

work in fragile states is inherently risky due to the volatility and complexity of their 

environments. The strategy recognizes that while we have had many successes, 

there is room for improving the effectiveness of our response in fragile states. Building on that strategy, over the past 6 months we have already strengthened our ability to: 

—monitor fragility across countries; 

—better identify the sources and dynamics of fragility in given countries; 

—focus our programs on the sources of fragility and on key factors—stability, security, reform and capacity building—for reducing fragility; 

—apply appropriate technical responses to the needs of fragile states, including 

through collaborative efforts with other donors; 

—respond rapidly by building a corps of crisis response officers and identifying 

possible options for streamlining internal procedures and key systems—personnel, procurement, planning, among them. 

The examples that follow illustrate some of USAID’s successes and ongoing challenges in responding to fragile and conflict situations over the past 15 years. 
120 

AFRICA

Liberia 

In 2003, 14 years of conflict ended in Liberia with the signing of the Accra Comprehensive Peace Agreement. USAID’s subsequent transitional program is a model 

of internal and inter-agency integration and collaboration, including participation 

from the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, the Office of Food for Peace, the Office of Transition Initiatives, and the Bureau for Africa, as well as the U.S. Departments of State, Defense, and Treasury. The primary goals of the current development program are to enhance good governance and the peace process; create economic and social conditions within communities that will facilitate both reintegration and the rehabilitation of infrastructure; increase formal and non-formal learning and counseling opportunities; and improve community health practices. 

As of 2004, USAID’s community revitalization and reintegration program created 

more than 500,000 days of direct employment for more than 10,000 ex-combatants 

and other unemployed Liberians, and over 1,500 kilometers of road were improved. 

In addition, thousands of children associated with the fighting forces have been reunited with their families. Under the program, displaced Liberians, refugees, excombatants, and other war-affected Liberians have received counseling and other 

services, including training, to help them reestablish communities and resume normal lives. 

USAID has also supported initiatives to ‘‘get out the vote’’ and provided nationwide coverage of the election process and funded civil society organizations to increase their civic advocacy activities related to the elections, corruption, conflict 

mitigation, and human rights. 

Mozambique 

In 1984, the United States and Mozambique reopened diplomatic relations after 

years of tension generated by the government’s embrace of the Soviet bloc. That 

same year, USAID initiated an emergency food assistance program to deal with a 

worsening refugee crisis caused by the ongoing civil war, and after 1997 engaged 

with the government’s shift to market-oriented reforms. These were followed by an 

economic policy reform program, support for regional transportation initiatives and 

programs to support private sector agricultural marketing. These programs laid the 

foundation for new private economic activity even as the war continued. The worst 

draught of the century in 1991–1992 saw USAID respond with assistance on a phenomenal scale ($225 million in fiscal year 1992 alone), reaching over 2 million people and facilitating transportation to Mozambique’s drought stricken, landlocked 

neighbors. 

The second phase of USAID’s engagement with Mozambique began with the signing of the Rome Peace Accord in October 1992, ending 16 years of civil war. 

USAID’s program included support for the continuing emergency needs among the 

country’s population of 5 million displaced and returnees; rural reintegration; infrastructure rehabilitation; demining; the demobilization of over 91,000 former 

RENAMO and Government soldiers; and elections. USAID financed the rehabilitation of over 1,000 kilometers of rural roads in the hardest hit areas of the country, 

thereby reviving long-dead market networks for agricultural production. USAID’s 

programs in support of the politically charged October 1994 general elections—from 

civic education to training for political parties—were critical to sustaining the peace. 

While the election itself was a spectacular success and involved literally dozens of 

organizations, embassies, and Mozambican actors, USAID’s innovative financing of 

the training of almost 30,000 Mozambican party poll monitors was one of the major 

reasons why the Mozambican people accepted the results. 

Sudan 

The signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in January 2005 represented 

a major positive change for Sudan, which has been embroiled in 40 years of civil 

war, the longest civil war in Africa’s history. USAID has been engaged in supporting 

the peace process since June 2003. Below are several examples of USAID’s work towards helping the feuding sides come to the peace table. 

With the late May 2004 signing of the Naivasha Protocols by the SPLM and the 

Government of Sudan (GoS), USAID helped provide a stable foundation for peace 

by disseminating accurate information on the Protocols throughout southern Sudan. 

USAID has funded two projects, the Sudan Radio Service (SRS) and the Southern 

Sudan Transition Initiative (SSTI), which spread news of the protocols and facilitated grass-roots participation in the peace process. The SRS broadcasts 6 hours of 

programming a day in nine different languages, reaching 1.5 million people or 20 
121 

percent of the total population of southern Sudan. The SRS provides timely updates 

and on-the-scene coverage of the peace process. 

As the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) transitions to the Government of South Sudan (GOSS) support is being provided on many levels to ensure 

healthy transition and strong systems are established. For instance, technical assistance and training was provided to the SPLM to develop a strategic framework 

for local governance in southern Sudan. Exposure visits were organized to Uganda 

and Ethiopia so that the team could examine regional models of decentralization. 

The final strategic framework developed by the team emphasizes good governance 

practices of accountability, transparency and efficiency. The model became the basis 

for a decentralized structure of governance for southern Sudan. 

As conflicts were increasingly fueled by the inability of the judiciary to respond 

to outstanding cases and the poor mobility of the few judges in the south, USAID 

developed the concept of mobile courts’ whereby judges travel to areas of potential 

conflict to try out overdue cases and implement verdicts. These activities have been 

very successful in resolving long-running conflicts. 

Additionally, USAID supported the strengthening of the Women’s Secretariat to 

carry out three regional Women’s Conferences in Bahr el Ghazal, Upper Nile and 

Southern Blue Nile. At these large conferences, the SPLM women were able to identify leadership at the county level and elect representatives for the National Conference. 

Burundi 

Hutu and Tutsi violence has plagued this small country in the Great Lakes Region of Africa. Bordering on the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, and Tanzania, the ethnic conflict has resulted in cross-border fighting and massive displacement of local residents. The transitional government that was inaugurated in November 2001, subsequently signed a power-sharing agreement with the largest rebel 

faction in 2003 and set in place a provisional constitution in 2004. The USAID program, launched in March 2002, has been supporting the peace process in Burundi 

through community development, youth vocational training, and governance, and 

media programming. 

In February 2004, USAID launched the Burundi Community-based Peace and 

Reconciliation Initiative (CPRI) to strengthen local capacities to benefit from and 

contribute to the peace process. CPRI is concentrating its work in two provinces 

where much of the worst destruction and displacement had occurred (Gitega and 

Ruyigi) through community-based reconciliation and participatory improvement 

projects, vocational skills training, small grants, and media. USAID trained and deployed 20 master trainers to each of 18 communes in Gitega and Ruyigi, who then 

conducted conflict mitigation training with three groups of civil society leaders in 

each commune and in five vocational skills training schools. Local government officials have said the training has helped them improve their leadership styles and 

relationships with their constituents. CPRI has also promoted reconciliation by 

bringing people together from returning and host populations to learn marketable 

skills and jointly participate in income-generating associations. Furthermore, the 

skills training reduces individuals’ dependency on land-based income, and therefore 

reduces the risk of violent conflicts over scarce land. 

USAID media partners, state-owned Burundi National Radio and Television 

(RTNB), and independent RSF Bonesha FM (Bonesha) obtained the equipment and 

support necessary to ensure uninterrupted, country-wide coverage and make weekly 

field trips out of Bujumbura to gather interviews and material for programming. 

These advances have significantly mitigated conflict in Burundi, given that the 

timely dissemination of accurate and balanced information is critical to assuaging 

fears and dampening incendiary rumors. 

ASIA AND THE NEAR EAST

Nepal 

The United States is supporting efforts to resolve the Maoist insurgency and address the underlying causes of poverty, inequality, and poor governance in Nepal, 

making an important contribution to fighting terrorism and diminishing the likelihood of a humanitarian crisis. 

USAID’s conflict program supports government and civil society efforts to address 

the conflict and promote community solidarity. The newly-formed Government of 

Nepal Peace Secretariat is poised to play a key role in reaching a peace settlement 

between the GON and the Maoists. USAID provides support to the Peace Secretariat in a number of areas including equipment and logistics, training in conflict 

resolution and negotiation techniques, and technical assistance on key policy and 
122 

programmatic issues. USAID is also supporting community mediation as a way to 

resolve disputes locally. 

In fiscal year 2004, USAID’s agricultural programs, working in rural areas including the conflict-affected West and Midwest regions, targeted more than 37,000 small 

farm and forest households. Household incomes increased by more than $100, and 

more than 200,000 persons benefited from the promotion of high-value agriculture 

and non-timber forest products. USAID programs help Nepal increase agricultural 

and other exports, and thus people’s incomes, through activities such as export promotion assistance and technical assistance to the Department of Customs. 

USAID works to strengthen community health programs, mitigating the impact 

of the conflict. Child mortality has declined by 40 percent in the last 10 years. The 

average number of children per family declined from 5 to 4.1 during the period. The 

Vitamin A supplementation program was implemented in all of Nepal’s 75 districts 

and reached 98 percent of all eligible children. 

Philippines 

Conflict in the Philippines is jeopardizing the country’s economic and social development and represents an important threat to regional security and USG vital interests. USAID’s conflict mitigation assistance seeks to address the underlying 

causes of conflict, and assistance is focused on conflict-affected areas. Activities aim 

to reintegrate former combatants and their communities into the mainstream economy, improve economic infrastructure, accelerate economic and business development, increase access to microfinance services, improve governance, and expand 

availability of social services. 

USAID helped 21,000 former combatants make the switch from guerilla fighting 

to farming seaweed, hybrid corn or rice. Three thousand of them have learned to 

produce higher value crops. With solar dryers, corn shellers and warehouses provided by USAID, they have increased their produce’s selling price by as much as 

35 percent. USAID has also helped strengthen the services of 115 banks and rural 

cooperatives, enabling them to provide loans and other services for small entrepreneurs profitably. 

Sri Lanka 

Sri Lanka has suffered through two decades of civil war between the Sinhalese 

majority and Tamil separatists, where tens of thousands have died in ethnic. Hope 

for peace came in February 2002 when the government and Liberation Tigers of 

Tamil Eelam formalized a cease-fire. A USAID program, launched in March 2003, 

has supported bringing all sides to the table to promote peace, especially in the regions most affected by ethnic and religious violence. USAID has also played an instrumental role in administering tsunami relief in Sri Lanka, and has incorporated 

ethnic peace-building into post-tsunami reconstruction efforts. Below are outlined 

activities that support the movement towards peace. 

A USAID program in Sri Lanka has supported positive interaction among diverse 

groups of people; promoted participatory decision-making at the community level; 

and facilitated the flow of accurate information from multiple viewpoints. Working 

with local NGOs, informal community groups, media entities, and local government 

officials, USAID identifies and supports critical initiatives that move the country 

along the continuum from war to peace. 

USAID’s programs in Sri Lanka have succeeded in bringing diverse groups of people together. One such project in Trincomalee involved the provision of sanitation 

facilities for a resettled Sinhalese community. Moreover, an inter-ethnic dimension 

was added by purposely enriching the ethnic mix of the vendors who provided goods 

and services to the beneficiaries. First, the Muslim vendors supplying materials to 

the beneficiaries voluntarily offered to deliver materials directly to each house to 

help facilitate construction. In addition, Tamil laborers helped the Sinhalese families excavate the sites for the facilities. Finally, a local Sinhalese brick maker from 

whom USAID purchased building materials greeted USAID staff members who were 

visiting the site and said ‘‘thank you’’ in Tamil, using the traditional Tamil gesture 

of respect. 

In addition, USAID has trained over 4,000 officials and key decision-makers and 

13,000 people in peacebuilding/conflict resolution/mitigation skills. For example, 

USAID funded the Eastern Rehabilitation and Relief Organization to conduct three 

local youth exchange programs in Ampara district. Between program start-up in 

March 2003 and the end of February 2005, USAID approved 345 small grants worth 

approximately $8.58 million. 

East Timor 

After a majority of East Timorese voted for independence from Indonesia in U.N.- 

sponsored referendum in 1999, local Indonesian-supported militias wreaked havoc 
123 

on the small island country in a scorched-earth campaign that destroyed infrastructure and homes and forced 300,000 into West Timor. Rebuilding the small country 

of 1 million citizens was part of a USG objective to promote self-determination and 

deter tyranny in the Southeast Asian region. Below are several examples of activities supporting the rebuilding of devastated East Timor. 

From the onset of independence, economic recovery was one of the most essential 

tasks facing East Timor. As a result, USAID quickly moved to foster economic opportunities and development. USAID invested $3.9 million through 469 small 

projects that directly engaged an estimated 63,000 people, putting cash directly back 

into the hands of individuals and relieving tensions evident in the population. 

The USAID provided in-kind provision of construction materials and commodities 

needed for rehabilitation of community-identified facilities deemed to be important 

for economic recovery. For instance, grants were made to repair agro-processing facilities, schools, water services, and roads. USAID also supported income-generating 

activities such as cooperative activities based on the provision of hand-tractors, 

brick making, and coffee production as well as micro-finance initiatives. 

USAID also supported macro-level interventions to support East Timor’s economic 

recovery. For instance, technical assistance was provided to the Government of East 

Timor for meaningful participation in the Timor Sea Mineral Rights Negotiations, 

the settlement of East Timor’s maritime and land boundaries, and technical inputs 

were provided for East Timorese officials in negotiations with the Phillips Petroleum 

Corporation on oil and gas exploration. 

EUROPE AND EURASIA

Bosnia and Herzegovina 

The overriding United States interest in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) remains 

the conversion of this multi-ethnic country from a source of regional instability to 

a peaceful, viable state on the road to European integration. BiH continues to struggle with the structural challenges of the Dayton Peace Accords. USAID is addressing BiH’s development challenges through a program targeted at economic transformation, democratic reform, and the reestablishment of multi-ethnic society. 

USAID’s work on developing private sector-led economic growth has significantly 

contributed to the development of a vibrant and sound banking sector and the generation of new jobs. The seven-year long activity is directly responsible for introducing modern banking into BiH, creating over 15,000 new jobs, and protecting 

30,000 existing jobs. Further work by USAID in developing a stable macroeconomic 

environment included assisting the BiH Government in becoming fiscally responsible by improving transparency and accountability of budget formulation. A financial management information system is now operational in the State, both entities, 

and 6 of the 10 federation cantons. 

USAID was instrumental in working on the execution of a judicial reform initiative resulting in a country-wide restructuring of the court system and a re-competition of every judicial and prosecutorial position. As a result of USAID’s investments, 

objective local government performance measures have improved considerably, as 

has citizen perception of this level of government. USAID opened 22 ‘‘one-stop 

shops’’, which have reduced waiting times for local government services. 

USAID’s support in re-establishing a multi-ethnic society through facilitation of 

minority returns has exceeded its targets. The lives of more than 129,000 minority 

returnees were directly impacted through the provision of access to basic services, 

including electricity, water, schools, health centers, and roads/streets. Seven hundred and fifty families were directly affected, representing one-fifth of the total minority returns registered since 2000. Sustainability of those returns is ensured 

through provision of economic opportunities such as small grants and loans. More 

than 1,950 families received some type of economic incentives that contributed to 

income generation. 

Macedonia 

In February 2001 fighting broke out between the Macedonian military and a 

newly formed Albanian insurgent group. Six months later, an estimated 30,000 civilians were displaced, a once expanding economy was in decline, and ethnic tensions 

remained high. In August 2001, parties signed a peace agreement, ending hostilities 

and promising political reform. However, socioeconomic pressures for violence persisted, with unemployed youth part of the problem. 

USAID created short-term employment opportunities for 2,000 of Macedonia’s 

youth that focused on repairing public works in all 124 municipalities. The program 

increased economic security for returnees, the internally displaced, and others af-
124 

fected by conflict. Ethnic tensions were reduced, and confidence in the peace process 

was raised. 

Kosovo 

As part of the ethnic violence that plagued the Balkans during the 1990s, Serbian 

militia groups forced massive expulsions of ethnic Albanians living in Kosovo in 

1998–99. International outrage ensued, and NATO forces bombed Serbia and stationed NATO-led forces in Kosovo. A key objective of the USAID program in Kosovo 

was to get Serbian, Albanian, and other ethnic citizens to work together through 

their communities in building more peaceful and compatible within the ethnically 

diverse society. 

USAID officers were in the first group of non-NATO officials to enter Kosovo in 

late June 1999. Building on contacts developed before the bombing and during the 

program-in-exile, USAID quickly began a program focused on rehabilitation and democracy-building. The initiative helped citizens understand and responsibly exercise 

their political rights, encouraged and supported the development of moderate and 

democratic local leadership, and enabled local communities to get the resources they 

need to rebuild according to their priorities. 

USAID supported the formation of over 200 Community Improvement Councils 

(CICs) composed of 12 to 15 people each who reflect the political, social, and intellectual diversity of the local population. The role of each CIC is to identify the community’s priority reconstruction needs, such as repairing a school or a road, and secure 

a local contribution—usually in the form of labor. USAID then provides the material 

resources. The experience of working together in a participatory, democratic, and 

constructive manner was as important a benefit as the humanitarian impact of the 

project itself. 

In fact, the CICs emerged as de facto representatives of the diverse interests in 

their communities, providing other donors and international agencies with information on real local needs and priorities as defined by Kosovars themselves. USAID 

leveraged over $4 million from other donors and over $2 million in local community 

contributions. 

USAID also supported the creation of an independent media and a strong civil 

society. Media projects included rebuilding infrastructure for radio and television 

broadcasts and supporting the first independent Albanian-language radio station in 

Kosovo, as well as community radio and newspaper outlets across Kosovo. Civil society groups, which have mobilized around issues related to human rights, women, 

and youth activism, have received crucial start-up assistance from USAID as well. 

LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

Colombia 

Since USAID initiated support for Plan Colombia in 2000, significant advances 

have been made in providing assistance to the internally displaced, expanding state 

presence, strengthening Colombian democracy, and creating licit economic opportunities. 

USAID has provided support for more than 1.4 million persons that have been 

displaced by violence or forced to flee their homes after receiving threats from guerillas, paramilitary groups or narco-traffickers. Most of the assistance is for physical 

and mental health services, shelter, water and sanitation, education, employment 

creation and community strengthening. USAID provides support for the rehabilitation of former child combatants. More than 1,375 children have entered the reception center thus far where they have received treatment, education and shelter. 

USAID has also helped more than 3,293 human rights workers, labor activists, journalists and others who were threatened by armed groups. 

Under the peace program, USAID has strengthened the capacity of the High Commissioner for Peace’s Office to engage in discussions and negotiations with illegally 

armed groups. USAID supported development of an Early Warning System that 

alerts the Colombian military, national police and other state institutions when situations occur that could lead to massacres or forced displacements. In fiscal year 

2004, more than 75 percent of the alerts issued were addressed correctly by pertinent Government of Colombia entities. 

USAID has increased access to justice for thousands of low income and 

marginalized Colombians by supporting national coverage of the Justice Houses Program. A total of 37 Justice Houses have been established, handling some 2.7 million 

cases. USAID has also established 35 oral trial courtrooms and strengthened the capabilities of public defenders. The local governance program has promoted effective 

public administration by supporting more than 210 social infrastructure projects; 
125 

creating 221 citizen oversight committees, and assisting 38 local governments with 

improvements of public services. 

USAID is working with farmers and townships that want to eradicate drug crops 

in exchange for support for construction of small infrastructure projects, food production, or cultivation and marketing of legal crops. During fiscal year 2004, USAID 

helped establish approximately 16,508 hectares of licit crops and completed 182 infrastructure projects in 13 municipalities in coca and poppy growing areas. The program has benefited over 12,845 families and will help reduce coca cultivation in Colombia and stem the flow of illicit drugs to the United States. 

El Salvador 

The Government of El Salvador and the representatives of the Farabundo Marti 

National Liberation Front signed comprehensive peace accords in January 1992, 

ending 12 years of civil war that caused enormous loss of life, destroyed a significant portion of the country’s infrastructure, and halted productive activity in and 

substantially depopulated a major portion of the country’s land area. 

USAID helped sow the seeds of future growth by reconstructing damaged infrastructure, financing land and titling for ex-combatants and civilian refugees, providing training and credit, increasing civic participation in the identification of priority infrastructure needs, broadening the role of NGOs in service delivery to rural 

communities, and attending to the special medical needs of the war disabled. 

USAID was engaged in a wide range of other programs such as promoting macroeconomic reforms; strengthening municipal governments; and reforming the judicial 

system, electoral processes, and institutions that played an important and complementary role in supporting the reconstruction process. This support is broadly 

credited with playing a critical role in assisting the successful transition from war 

to peace. 

IDFA ACCOUNT INCREASE

Question. The President’s budget would reduce Food for Peace funding by $300 

million and increase USAID’s International Disaster and Famine Assistance (IDFA) 

by the same amount. Under this proposal, USAID would create a new, cash-based 

food aid program under foreign-grown and processed commodities could be purchased for shipment from foreign ports on foreign-flag vessels. Under Food for 

Peace, Title II of Public Law 480, USAID has been providing emergency food assistance for decades. Why is a new cash-based program needed now? 

Answer. Emergencies have increased in complexity and magnitude and USAID 

has not always been able to respond in the most effective manner to these emergency food crises. FFP too often has been faced with pipeline breaks. Given the 

widely differing conditions faced in the countries where we provide food aid, we 

must have the flexibility to respond quickly and appropriately. In many emergency 

situations, time is a critical factor and cash is necessary for making local purchases 

so that needs are met in time to prevent mortality rates exceeding those that are 

normal in the emergency-affected area. 

U.S. RECORD ON FOREIGN ASSISTANCE

Question. This week the European Union (EU) announced that it will double its 

aid to developing countries in the next 5 years. Some expressed frustration at the 

incremental movement toward bigger aid budgets that could have a significant impact to the world’s poorest countries. While the United States is still the largest 

donor in terms of dollars spent on foreign assistance to poorer countries, we are 

often ranked last when aid transfers by developed country donors are calculated by 

percent of gross national product (GNP). Recently Britain disclosed details of a 

‘‘Marshall Plan’’ for the developing world. British Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, said, ‘‘we must rise to the challenge and we accept that we will be 

judged by what we achieve.’’ 

In light of these announcements and ambitions, are we doing all that we possibly 

can to assist those with the least resources? 

Answer. In the overall view, the President’s fiscal year 2006 request for development assistance is almost double what the level was 5 years ago and has risen faster than at any time since the Marshall Plan. The fiscal year 2006 budget request 

reflects the President’s recognition that development assistance makes a vital contribution to enhancing U.S. national security. To underline his commitment to increase development assistance, the President has launched several new initiatives 

for the poorest countries and has also established two new accounts for the Global 

HIV/AIDS Initiative and the Millennium Challenge Account. These recently established accounts deal, in the first case, with the most serious global health issue of 
126 

this millennium, and in the second case, provide dramatically increased assistance 

to countries that rule justly, invest in their people, and encourage economic freedom. 

FRAGILE STATES POLICY AND CHILDREN

Question. In reading USAID’s Fragile States Strategy document, I understand that 

the term ‘‘fragile states’’ refers ‘‘generally to a broad range of failing, failed, and recovering states.’’ My concern is that the ‘‘Strategic Priorities’’ laid out in the Fragile 

States document only mentions the world children twice in the entire document, and 

this informs my question. 

Are children being given the level of attention and commitment they deserve in 

USAID’s ‘‘fragile states’’ policy? 

Answer. Children are certainly victims of fragility, and deserve and receive 

USAID’s help. USAID helps children through multiple programs targeted at 

strengthening families and helping children to live healthier, productive lives. These 

programs are implemented in both ‘‘fragile states’’ and those embarking on a path 

toward transformational development. 

The Fragile States Strategy you cite is focused on the root causes of fragility— 

factors such as conflict, political instability, and weak governance. For this reason, 

you find limited mention of specific groups, including children, and our programs 

addressing their needs. But programs will clearly relate to children and youth: 

school reconstruction, textbooks and supplies, and teacher training; job creation focused on youth unemployment; and, demobilizing and reintegrating ex-child soldiers 

are three examples. Thus, implementing the strategy includes investments in problems of youth and children, primarily aimed at stability and security. 

While the strategy calls for increased program focus on the sources of fragility, 

USAID will continue to respond the effects of fragility. This includes humanitarian 

assistance, protection of human rights and abuse prevention, which will target children as a primary group. Moreover, most fragile states are characterized by high 

under-five and infant mortality rates. We will continue to provide immediate lifesaving services in fragile states to reduce mortality as well as foster healthy and 

productive families. However, this alone will be insufficient. To have a lasting impact, it is imperative that we address the political and social factors that continue 

to make these children (and their families) vulnerable. 

MEETING THE 10 PERCENT OVC EARMARK IN FISCAL YEAR 2006

Question. The Global AIDS legislation directs that 10 percent of all Global AIDS 

funding be spent in behalf of orphans and vulnerable children. This is a seemingly 

hard requirement to achieve in fiscal year 2006 given that 52 percent of funding 

has been cut from the ‘‘Displaced Children’s and Orphan’s Fund.’’ 

How much is being spent to assist displaced HIV/AIDS orphans and vulnerable 

children and how will USAID meet the fiscal year 2006 requirement in the Global 

AIDS legislation? 

Answer. The Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator informs us that as of 

June 2005, total planned allocations of fiscal year 2005 Emergency Plan funds for 

the care and support of orphans and vulnerable children was approximately $82.5 

million, or 7 percent, of Emergency Plan funding in the 15 focus countries. 

USAID, as a primary implementer of President Bush’s Emergency Plan for AIDS 

Relief, is a part of the interagency orphans and vulnerable children (OVC) working 

group that assists the individual country programs to identify barriers and help 

meet the 10 percent requirement. Through this interagency process, we are confident that the fiscal year 2006 budget will meet the 10 percent funding requirement 

for the care and support of orphans and vulnerable children. 

VULNERABLE CHILDREN

Question. The Vulnerable Children section of the Strategic Pillar category on 

Global Health has been cut by 63 percent. This is a drastic cut in light of the needs 

of children. Children are our bridge to the next generation and we must address 

the issues that vulnerable children suffer from. 

What is the rationale behind such a severe funding cut for these children? 

Answer. Saving the lives of children is of prime importance, and USAID is committed to improving the health of children. USAID supports various categories of 

activities in this area, including vulnerable children and programs to address the 

primary causes of most under-five mortality. We have had to make difficult choices 

in our budget request, however. Overall, we have tried to protect funding for HIV/ 

AIDS and Child Survival and maternal health programs that support life-saving 

interventions with the most impact on the main killers of children. 
127 

Within the Vulnerable Children funding category, the request reflects funding 

only for the Displaced Children’s and Orphans Fund. This is an extremely important program that has positively changed the lives of millions of marginalized children over the years. Because of our budget constraints, we were not able to request 

funding for other activities and specifically for vulnerable children, typically included in the appropriations. The difficult choice we made was between those activities and our core child survival programs, and, for the reason stated above, we determined that core child survival activities were a higher priority. 

CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

Senator BENNETT. Thank you all very much. That concludes our 

hearings. 

[Whereupon, at 4:03 p.m., Thursday, May 26, the hearings were 

concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] 

(i) 

LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND 

PREPARED STATEMENTS 

Page 

Bennett, Senator Robert F., U.S. Senator from Utah: 

Questions submitted by ................................................................................... 114 

Statements of.................................................................................................... 30, 99 

Brownback, Senator Sam, U.S. Senator from Kansas, statements of................. 32, 96 

Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, opening statement ...... 5 

De Wine, Senator Mike, U.S. Senator from Ohio, statements of......................... 25, 85 

Harkin, Senator Tom, U.S. Senator from Iowa, statements of............................ 35, 92 

Landrieu, Senator Mary L., U.S. Senator from Louisiana: 

Prepared statements........................................................................................ 24, 89 

Questions submitted by ................................................................................... 119 

Statements of.................................................................................................... 21, 89 

Leahy, Senator Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont: 

Opening statements ........................................................................................... 3, 83 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 83 

Questions submitted by ................................................................................. 39, 115 

McConnell, Senator Mitch, U.S. Senator from Kentucky: 

Opening statements ........................................................................................... 1, 69 

Prepared statements ........................................................................................ 3, 69 

Questions submitted by ................................................................................... 105 

Natsios, Hon. Andrew S., Administrator, United States Agency for International Development .......................................................................................... 69 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 73 

Summmary statement ...................................................................................... 70 

Rice, Hon. Condoleezza, Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Department of 

State ...................................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Summary statement ......................................................................................... 5 

Stevens, Senator Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska, prepared statement .............. 101 

(iii) 

SUBJECT INDEX 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Abkhazia/South Ossetia .......................................................................................... 16 

Additional Subcommittee Questions ...................................................................... 39 

Africa ........................................................................................................................ 26 

Balancing: 

Millennium Challenge Corporation and Foreign Assistance Funding ......... 17 

State Operations and Foreign Aid .................................................................. 19 

Burma Sanctions ..................................................................................................... 15 

Charles Taylor ......................................................................................................... 18 

China Trade ............................................................................................................. 28 

Colombian Paramilitaries ....................................................................................... 19 

Coordinator for Disabilities ..................................................................................... 35 

Darfur ....................................................................................................................... 32 

Development Assistance .......................................................................................... 9 

Disability Programs ................................................................................................. 35 

Equal Importance of State and Foreign Operations Requests ............................. 7 

Focus on Women in Foreign Policy ........................................................................ 22 

Hague Treaty on International Adoption .............................................................. 23 

Haiti .......................................................................................................................... 26 

Iran ........................................................................................................................... 15 

Marla Ruzicka War Victims Fund .......................................................................... 38 

Microcredit ............................................................................................................... 31 

Middle East Elections .............................................................................................. 32 

Millennium Challenge Account .............................................................................. 9 

North Korea: 

Human Rights ................................................................................................... 33 

Progress of Talks .............................................................................................. 20 

OSCE/Kyrgyz/Georgia ............................................................................................. 33 

Peacekeeping Operations ........................................................................................ 8 

Promoting Democracy .............................................................................................. 6 

Public Law 480/USAID ........................................................................................... 37 

Respect for the Holy Koran ..................................................................................... 5 

Russia ....................................................................................................................... 17 

Russian Troops in Georgia and Armenia/Azerbaijan ............................................ 16 

Security ..................................................................................................................... 38 

State and Foreign Operations ................................................................................. 20 

Sudan ........................................................................................................................ 27 

Trade Agenda, CAFTA Vote ................................................................................... 8 

Uganda ..................................................................................................................... 34 

UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

A New Era of Development Assistance .................................................................. 73 

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 105 

Administration Initiatives ....................................................................................... 78 

Adoption and Orphans and Vulnerable Children (OVC) ...................................... 119 

Afghanistan: 

Coordination with Afghan Government .......................................................... 113 

Impact of Alternative Livelihoods Programs .................................................. 112 

Voice for Humanity .......................................................................................... 113 

Africa ........................................................................................................................ 120 

Armenia .................................................................................................................... 105
Page

iv 

Asia and the Near East ........................................................................................... 121 

Avian Flu/HIV/AIDS ................................................................................................ 109 

Budget ....................................................................................................................... 115 

Burma: 

Coordination of Support ................................................................................... 113 

Coordination With State .................................................................................. 114 

Coordination of Democracy Programs .................................................................... 108 

Democracy: 

Contracts ........................................................................................................... 109 

Definition ........................................................................................................... 108 

Promotion .......................................................................................................... 107 

Egypt ......................................................................................................................... 105 

Europe and Eurasia ................................................................................................. 123 

Food Aid: 

Improving Responsiveness ............................................................................... 114 

Purchasing and Distribution ........................................................................... 114 

Fragile States Policy and Children ........................................................................ 126 

Funds Transfer: 

Development Assistance to Transition Initiatives ......................................... 75 

For Local Purchase of Food ............................................................................. 75 

Future Budget .......................................................................................................... 116 

IDFA Account Increase ........................................................................................... 125 

Infectious Disease Funding ..................................................................................... 116 

Iraq: 

Contracts ........................................................................................................... 106 

Democracy Programs ........................................................................................ 107 

Vocational Training .......................................................................................... 107 

Latin America and the Caribbean .......................................................................... 124 

Major Initiatives for Fiscal Year 2006 ................................................................... 75 

Management Reforms and Initiatives .................................................................... 78 

Meeting the 10 Percent OVC Earmark in Fiscal Year 2006 ................................ 126 

Office of: 

Energy and Information Technology ............................................................... 118 

Private Voluntary Cooperation ........................................................................ 117 

Overhead Rate ......................................................................................................... 112 

Overseas Conference Expenditures ........................................................................ 111 

Perceived Cuts in Existing Foreign Aid Programs ............................................... 116 

Presidential Initiatives ............................................................................................ 78 

Procurement Improvements .................................................................................... 112 

Program Priorities: Core Missions of USAID ........................................................ 76 

Programs in Thailand Regional Office ................................................................... 109 

Spending on Democracy Funds .............................................................................. 109 

Ten Major Achievements: 

Business Transformation Fiscal Year 2001–2004 .......................................... 79 

USAID in: 

Afghanistan ................................................................................................ 76 

Iraq ............................................................................................................. 77 

Tsunami Assistance ................................................................................................. 106 

Response of Indonesian Government .............................................................. 106 

U.S. Record on Foreign Assistance ......................................................................... 125 

USAID’s Record of Success in Fragile States ........................................................ 119 

Use of Large Contractors ........................................................................................ 117 

Value-Added Commodities.................................................................................. 115, 118 

Vulnerable Children ................................................................................................ 126 

Æ